#23-AP-0009, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine

[Hope Kant]

Appellant Name: State of San Andreas
Appellant Attorney(s): Hope Kant and Roderick Marchisio

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0035
Presiding Trial Judge: Hugh Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [ ] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
  [X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• It is importance to follow previous precedence set by judges. When Judge Allgood ruled guilty on VF01 - Evading an Officer, he overturned the rulings of previous cases: #23-CM-0029, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba and #22-CM-0054 State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov. Judge Allgoood does not disagree that the defendant ran on foot, and in fact found him guilty for resisting arrest. Previous precedence states that a Defendant running away after a vehicle pursuit in an attempt to get away from the pursuing police officers is a clear indication of guilt in VF01 cases. Alternatively cases like #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet and #22-CM-0013, State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, set the same precedence where defendants who did not run were found not guilty. The prosecution asks the ruling be reviewed due to clear errors in the judge's interpretation of the law based on the previous precedence set by Judicial Rulings on the law.

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
#23-AP-0009

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 30th of May, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0009.

The appellant is now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor. Once received, the respondent will be given seven days to respond with any legal arguments of their own.

Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief within the allotted time, the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Appeal Opening Brief

---

The prosecution will start by breaking their appeal up into different parts. We will begin with a review of the initial case, discuss the previous precedence set by other Judge, and then deliver our conclusion on the matter. While the Prosecution would like the reviewing Judge on the case to know that there are several inconsistencies in the overall ruling on this case, we will only be appealing the VF01 - Evading an Officer verdict as that is the most egregious violation of our current precedence.

Review of #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine:

On January 17th, 2023, the Los Santos Police Department arrested an individual by the name of Tony Fontaine. Mr. Fontaine was found in a police cruiser with several other individuals. Upon the crash of said cruiser, Mr. Fontaine exited the vehicle and proceeded to run on foot. To note: The Judge found the defendant GUILTY of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, the importance of this note will be shown later. It is important that all who read this understand that the alleged kidnapper of Mr. Fontaine felt it necessary to not only show up to the trial, but also show support towards the defendant during said trial. While the Judge felt it necessary to only include one statement made by the alleged kidnapper, there were several other statements made inside and outside of the court room that alluded to not only the guilt of Mr. Fontanie but also the affiliation between himself and the alleged kidnapper. Including only some of the statements, but not all is the exact opposite of justice and fairness, and can only serve to hinder the proper application of both.

Previous Precedence:

#23-CM-0029, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba, the verdict states: "Once the vehicle was stopped, five suspects fled the vehicle at the City Scrapyard". The Prosecution references the earlier note, once again stating that Mr. Scoobie Bathsheba in 23-CM-0029 did in fact run after the pursuit had ended, thus showing his guilt of the subsequent VF-01 charge.

#22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov, the verdict states: "The defense claims that the defendant was compliant with all orders given by the officers involved and presents the narrative that it was unclear whether or not the defendant was explicitly ordered to exit the vehicle or given enough time to exit before the driver evaded from the traffic stop. While this argument brings doubt to the defendant's intent, that doubt is dispelled due to the defendant's alleged decision to flee on foot following the crash that ended the vehicular pursuit." Once again, the Prosecution references their earlier note, stating that Mr. Fontanie, much like Mr. Seretov in the above case chose to flee after the car was stopped, further indicating his guilt.

#23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet and #22-CM-0013, State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, Ms. Jet and Ms. Valentine were found not guilty because of the lack of ability to exit the vehicle safely, along with their compliance once the vehicle was stopped. These two things in conjunction showed that the Prosecution failed to prove guilt in these instances. Alternatively, Mr. Fontaine did in fact fail to comply with cops and was found guilty for resisting arresting. The question of availability to exit the vehicle was never brought into question due to his assumed inability to exit the cop car, but he seemed to have no problem with that fact as he immediately ran after it was crashed.

Conclusion:

The prosecution appeals this case due to clear errors in the judge's interpretation of the law based on the previous precedence set. We have provided numerous cases and cited multiple verdicts, all that serve to prove that when someone fails to comply with police/runs upon exiting a vehicle they become liable for the charge of VF-01 as that shows a willingness to participate in the initial disobedience of a lawful request. The Prosecution asks that the initial ruling be overturned and the defendant, Mr. Tony Fontaine, be found guilty of VF-01.

---

Prosecuting Attorney
Notary Public
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

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

---

MOTION TO DISMISS

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
#23-AP-0009

A Motion to Dismiss was filed in the above case on the 3rd of June, 2023.

The Defendant, Tony Fontaine, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Dismiss, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Breach of Procedure per the San Andreas Court of Appeals - Notice of Appeal Filing Information + Violation of the Defendant's 5th Amendment rights
  • Detailed Explanation:
    
    The Defense is filling this motion to dismiss as the prosecution has breached the court of appeals' procedures as per the San Andreas Court of Appeals - Notice of Appeal Filing Information.
    

    Please note, the only persons able to file an appeal after an issuance of verdict is the defendant or their attorney(s) due to the Double Jeopardy rule.

    
    More importantly, further continuation of this appeal would constitute a breach of the Defendant's 5th Amendment Rights.
    

    Each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state, and should it be violated, with probable cause and proof of evidence, a member of any San Andreas Law Enforcement Agency may submit an individual for punishment to the Department of Corrections. Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed.
    
    In cases of indictment by the Office of the Attorney General, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment of indictment is approved by a qualified judge as the Chief Justice may see fit.
    
    No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.
    
    No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
    
    Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  ---

  
  We urge this court to accept this motion and immediately dismiss this appeal given the above considerations. The precedent set by accepting and reviewing this appeal would be a breach of the Constitution of San Andreas, the Defendant's Rights and the Court of Appeals' own procedures.

Cyrus Raven
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
5356160 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to note the part that the defense has chosen to exclude in order to promote their own narrative. "Filing a Notice of Appeal is done after an issuance of verdict for one of two reasons, you wish to appeal a verdict based on arguments that there were errors in the trials procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law, or new evidence has come to light proving the appellants innocence. This Notice of Appeal must be filed within 72 hours of the Issuance of Verdict", thus making the above motion moot. The Prosecution is arguing both errors in the judges interpretation of the law and trial procedure.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0009, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  The San Andreas Court of Appeals - Notice of Appeal Filing Information is clear.
  

  Please note, the only persons able to file an appeal after an issuance of verdict is the defendant or their attorney(s) due to the Double Jeopardy rule.

  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
  5356160 — [email protected]

  ---

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  At the risk of beating a dead horse, the prosecution will reiterate what we are appealing. We are appealing the verdict and overall trial procedures of the Judge because of errors in the trials procedure and errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.
  
  To explain, the Prosecution in their closing statements noted and objected to the Defenses use of the Golden Rule, while there is no mention of this in our handbook, it is named the Golden Rule for a reason as it is one of the more obvious and understood rules of court. When the Defense asked the court to "put themselves in the shoes of the defendant", they effectively asked the Judge to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence. The entire purpose of a Judge to as act as a neutral party, reviewing the facts on a case and making a decision based off those facts. If we as attorneys make a request to detract from that fairness and neutrality, then we are not doing our duty as agents of the courts. As stated previously, this objection was made prior to the verdict of the trial and absolutely has the ability to affect the verdict.
  
  On another note, the Judge only included one statement in his verdict, "As noted in the verbal verdict, a co-defendant (Becks Hirano) was present in the court room and did make a statement, "Shoutout to my boy Darius, he always got my back when we out claiming cruisers", during the trial. However, this statement only implicts Becks Hirano and Darius Baker in the stealing of the cruiser, and does not implicate the defendant." This was not the only statement made by the alleged kidnapper in regards to the trial proceedings, the defendant, or the people associated with the crime. To only include one statement, not all statements made does a disservice to all parties and more importantly the final verdict.
  
  Finally, I would like to believe that the breaking of previously set precedence would be a detriment to past, present, and future court cases. Every statement provided by the Prosecution in regards to this appeal has been in the spirit of true justice. It is clear, in the evidence provided that there were errors made before the verdict, during the verdict, and upon the issuing of the verdict. Once again, we ask for the courts to hear our appeal in an effort to maintain current precedence and fairness in our Judicial Branch.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
#23-AP-0009

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of July, 2023.

In the underlying case of #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine, the defendant stood accused of violating several entries in the Penal Code including GM04 - Resisting Arrest and VF01 - Evading an Officer, among others. The case progressed through discovery and pretrial in the Superior Court with one decision on a motion having been disputed, taken through the Court of Appeals, and resolved during pretrial.

During the subsequent trial, the presiding judge reviewed the evidence and rendered a verdict to find the defendant guilty of GM04 - Resisting Arrest but not guilty of VF01 - Evading an Officer, resulting in a mixed verdict and a finding of guilty on three of the seven charges. Within the verdict, the presiding judge noted that "during the pursuit, pursuing law enforcement officers were fired upon by several of the occupants of the vehicle, which based on the evidence appears to be the two co-defendants who were armed and remained in the vehicle after it crashed. The defendant and driver of the vehicle fled on foot. The defendant purportedly made statements to law enforcement about being kidnapped, and therefore, not a willing participant of the evasion."

Additionally, the presiding judge noted the apparent refusal of the defendant to comply with lawful orders issued by the responding law enforcement officers after the defendant had left the vehicle and ran on foot, which had ultimately resulted in a finding of guilty for GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify and GM04 - Resisting Arrest.

When it comes to the VF01 - Evading an Officer charge, however, the presiding judge found that there had been insufficient evidence to support a conviction of the charge, asserting, "the court does agree the defendant was within a stolen vehicle, however, the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proving that the Defendant either stole the [cruiser], or engaged in acts that would have made the Defendant an accessory to such theft."

The appellant in this case has argued that the presiding judge's verdict to find the defendant not guilty of VF01 - Evading an Officer while finding him guilty of GM04 - Resisting Arrest have gone against previously established precedent in the Superior Court, citing #23-CM-0029, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba, #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov, #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet, and #22-CM-0013, State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine.

The appellant asserts that the Bathsheba case and the Seretov case establish a precedent that a defendant running upon the conclusion of a law enforcement involved pursuit in addition to the cases of Jet and Valentine, which the appellant asserts supports the precedent, as those defendants were found not guilty due to an apparent inability to exit an allegedly evading vehicle safely while the defendant, Tony Fontaine, exited the vehicle upon the conclusion of the pursuit and immediately began running.

The appellant further argues that the defense has violated the "Golden Rule" during closing statements of asking the finder of facts to place themselves in the shoes of the defendant, which suggests the judge depart from neutrality and decide the case on personal interest.

The respondent has countered, not on the grounds of the general merits of the case, however, has argued that as the defendant has been found not guilty in the Superior Court, any such effort to overturn the not guilty verdict as issued would be a violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights against double jeopardy outlined in the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb."

This could would like to first respond to the allegations of a violation of previous precedent when it comes to the verdict issued in the Superior Court. While the court acknowledges the general statement that defendants who run following a pursuit with law enforcement are typically found guilty of both GM04 - Resisting Arrest and VF01 - Evading an Officer, this is simply a piece to the overall puzzle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact pattern that the defendant exited the vehicle and ran upon the conclusion of the pursuit would certainly support the allegation of being a willful participant in the evasion, but running after a pursuit does not necessarily beget a finding of guilty for Evading an Officer - it is but one piece of evidence that builds an overall narrative that the finder of facts must take into consideration while deliberating a verdict. There are countless variables that have varying degrees of impact on the presiding judge during deliberations of a case and while the cases referenced in the appellant's submissions may support a certain finding based upon the similarities between them, the differences between each of these cases must also be taken into consideration.

Additionally when it comes to court precedent, there are varying levels of authority when it comes to a judge ruling in coordination with or departing from what is considered a past precedent. Decisions issued in the Superior Court can be used as a persuasive authority to cases with similar circumstances in the Superior Court. A judge may review the facts and circumstances in that similar case and may take it into consideration when issuing their ruling. When it comes to the Court of Appeals, however, decisions and thus precedent established by the Court of Appeals has a binding authority on cases coming through the lower courts (Superior Court). Lastly, decisions issued in the Supreme Court would have a binding authority on both the Court of Appeals and the Superior Court.

The main point is that decisions issued in the Superior Court only have a persuasive authority on all other cases in the court system - their arguments and assertions may be taken into consideration when ruling on cases of a similar nature, but it does not bind a case from ruling in conjunction with the previously issued decision.

To finally address the issue of double jeopardy as raised by the respondent in this case, the court must respect the binding authority of the Constitution and will be ruling in accordance with the language set forth within the 5th Amendment that no person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb. To be clear, there are few circumstances in which the court would grant an appeal submitted by the prosecution after a finding of a not guilty verdict. These types of situations must present a significant legal error that had a direct impact on the fairness of the case. Should such an error exist, the court may, simply put, set aside the not guilty verdict rendered in the Superior Court and order a remedy to mitigate the error, effectively causing the original case to remain open for the defendant's right to a fair trial to be observed.

Based upon the submissions received in this appeal, the court has found that the claimed errors including going against previous precedent, which has been established by this court as persuasive and non-binding, the references to the "Golden Rule," and any other assertions of an error in the judge's interpretation of the law to be insignificant enough to directly impact the fairness of this case to the point where this court would impose on the defendant's Constitutional rights against double jeopardy.

With all of that taken into consideration, this court is hereby granting the respondent's Motion to Dismiss and is ruling in accordance with the defendant's Constitutional rights against prosecution for the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy. The verdict rendered in the Superior Court shall stand unaffected and this case is hereby dismissed.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]