#26-BT-0059 State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano

[Lilliana Howell]

Defendant Name: Lilliana Hirano
Defendant Phone: 485-7557
(( Defendant Discord: .Kempi ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC +1 ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Self-Representation, Private Defense Attorney, Public Defender

Charging Department: LSSD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 08/JUN/2026 21:00
Charge(s):

• SF07 - Bank Robbery

Narrative:

I wish to appeal the charge.

---

I, Lilliana Hirano, 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. ))

[Joseph Horton]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0059

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 13th 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,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0059

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 13th day of June, 2026.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano 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,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0059

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 13th day of July, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1 Arrest Report

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Lilliana Hirano
    Telephone Number: 4857557
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Yellow, Dominator GTX, LP N8YJIMB0, VIN, TXLGB44AJX5RYA000 RO Lilliana Hirano

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Clay Thompson
    Badge Number: 8683
    Callsign: Omega-4

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2026-06-08
    Deputies Involved: Christopher Miles
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Units responded to a U-Tool bank robbery. A yellow Dominator GTX, RO Lilliana Hirano was called out as one of the vehicles on the scene before it quickly started to evade and a pursuit started. The pursuit landed in JTAC due to low number of units leading the chase into the City where the vehicle was lost. Due to the number of vehicles involved at the Bank we focused on another TAC situation before catching a second suspect from that bank. During the detainment of another suspect, the exact same yellow dominator was spotted by an AIR unit. Visual had been lost for approx 5 minutes. A second pursuit ensued with the Yellow Dominator until the had crashed and we were able to apprehend them outside of the vehicle. Lilliana Hirano was not wearing the same clothes, nor did they have evidence on them from the Bank but after reading them their rights, and the time between losing & finding their vehicle again before they started to evade Deputies & Officers were confident this was the same suspect. They were processed at DOC.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  Clay Thompson
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness Statement Sheriff Thompson

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: 08/Jun/2026

  Witness Information

  • Name: Clay Thompson
    Date of Birth: 30/05/1995
    Phone Number: N/A
    Occupation: Assistant Sheriff, LSSD

  Witness Statement

  • During the daylight hours on June 8th, Units responded to a U-Tool bank robbery. A yellow Dominator GTX, with RO Lilliana Hirano was called out as one of the vehicles on the scene before it quickly started to evade and a pursuit started. We had lost the yellow Dominator before calling it off and pursuing a second vehicle involve. When we had taken the second suspect into custody, our AIR unit also found the yellow Dominator GTX who was close by. A second pursuit ensued with the Yellow Dominator until the had crashed and we were able to apprehend them outside of the vehicle. Lilliana Hirano was not wearing the same clothes, nor did they have evidence on them from the Bank but after reading them their rights, and the short time between losing & finding their vehicle again before they started to evade Deputies & Officers were confident this was the same suspect.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Clay Thompson, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    
    Clay Thompson
    Assistant Sheriff
    Los Santos Sheriffs' Department
    
    Date: 17/Jun/2026

  

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0059

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 14th of July, 2026.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The defense does not dispute any facts
  • Detailed Explanation: The defense does not dispute any facts within the evidence posted in discovery. Even accepting these facts as true, they fail to establish that the defendant took part in the robbery. As such the issue before the Court is whether it's enough that "Deputies & Officers were confident this was the same suspect." without any supporting footage physical or forensic evidence is sufficient to meet the State's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    The evidence presented establishes that:
    • A Yellow Dominator GTX registered to Lilliana Hirano was observed leaving the scene.
    • Deputies lost visual contact with the vehicle
    • The defendant was found driving said vehicle approximately 5 minutes later
    • No proceeds or other evidence from the robbery were found on the defendant, including the defendant wearing different clothing any suspects from the bank
    
    The arresting deputy's report acknowledges that the defendant was not wearing the same clothing as the robbery suspect and that no proceeds or other evidence from the robbery were recovered. Despite this, the report concludes that deputies and officers were "confident" the defendant was the same individual based on the relatively short amount of time between losing and regaining visual contact with the vehicle.
    
    Even if every fact presented by the State is accepted as true, the evidence only establishes that a vehicle registered to the defendant was seen leaving the scene of the robbery and that the defendant was later found driving that same vehicle after deputies had lost visual contact. The State has presented no CCTV footage, physical or forensic evidence placing the defendant inside the bank or establishing that they were one of the individuals who committed the robbery.
    
    It should also be noted that the defendant has already pled guilty to the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer, and is only appealing the charge of SF07 - Bank Robbery. As such, the issue before the Court is not whether the defendant fled from Law Enforcement while operating the vehicle but rather whether the State has presented sufficient evidence to place the defendant inside the bank or otherwise establish them as having otherwise participated in the robbery.
    
    At best, the evidence creates suspicion based on the defendant later being found driving a vehicle that had previously been seen leaving the scene. However this is not enough to meet the State's burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lilliana Hirano
Self-Representing

[Joseph Horton]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will provide the Prosecution five (5) days to provide any rebuttal to the Motion for Summary Judgement. At that point, the Court will review the request and provide a decision.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]