#26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post Reply
Robin Bank
Posts: 116
Joined: 01 Sep 2024, 07:51
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SADOC Awards

#26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Robin Bank »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Robin Bank
Defendant Phone: 2508323
(( Defendant Discord: is.ronin))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC+2 ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender
Image
Charging Department: SD
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 04/JUN/2026 8PM
Charge(s):
  • Failure to identify
Narrative:

I was wrongfully charged



I, Robin Bank, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6603
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Hope Kant »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"


NOTICE OF RECEIPT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 5th day of June, 2026.


The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.

Respectfully,

Image
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6603
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Hope Kant »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"


NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 5th day of June, 2026.


The case of State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,

Image
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Rowin Lawson
Judicial Branch
Posts: 855
Joined: 14 Jan 2024, 19:03
ECRP Forum Name: akcoffeeman
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Rowin Lawson »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 9th day of July, 2026.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

  • Reasoning: The prosecution would like to request an additional week to collect evidence, additionally we would like to apologize for the delay on this continuance, I was on LOA and it appears this continuance was not submitted.


Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Joseph Horton
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1286
Joined: 28 Apr 2025, 11:25
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

Re: #26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Joseph Horton »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"


COURT DECISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A decision was reached in the above case on the 11th day of July, 2026.


The Court will accept the Motion for Continuance, which concludes on the 16th of July, 2026. No further extension of the discovery deadline will be granted.


So Ordered,

Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]
Image
Robin Bank
Posts: 116
Joined: 01 Sep 2024, 07:51
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SADOC Awards

Re: #26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

Post by Robin Bank »


The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to reconsider its Order granting the State's Motion for Continuance.

The Defendant was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the State's Motion for Continuance before the Court issued its ruling. Respectfully, the Defendant submits that consideration of both parties' arguments is fundamental to ensuring a fair adjudication of contested motions.

Had the Defendant been permitted to respond, the Defendant would have argued that the State has already had approximately thirty (30) days to investigate and prepare this straightforward Failure to Identify matter. The prosecution's stated justification; that the assigned prosecutor was on Leave of Absence and that the continuance was not timely submitted; is an internal administrative matter within the State's control and does not constitute good cause to delay the Defendant's right to a timely resolution.

While the Defendant appreciates the Court's limitation that no further extension of the discovery deadline will be granted, the Defendant respectfully submits that the burden of the State's internal staffing or scheduling issues should not be borne by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its Order, vacate the continuance, and proceed with the matter as originally scheduled.
Post Reply

Return to “SAJB - Criminal Court”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests