#23-AP-0012, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

[Dmitri Leroy]

Appellant Name: Shawn Morningstar
Appellant Attorney(s): RockFord Lawfirm - Dmitri Leroy

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0038
Presiding Trial Judge: Robert Winejudge
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)

• The residing judge in the highlighted portion of the conclusion quoted below has ruled that the defendant was driving to preserve his life, however could have taken other measures to do so therefore still violated Los Santos Penal Code and gave probable cause.
  
  Conclusion:
  Spoiler

  Before I begin with my verdict, I wanted to thank all of you for coming, I want to thank the Department of Corrections for acting as bailiffs. There were some confusions in this case due to the word ''suspect'' being used in the evidence which referred to another vehicle, a Jugular and the shootout that Shawn Morningstar was in the area of. The Court will focus on the Black Sultan Classic in this case, and would like to avoid any confusion about the other incident and vehicle.
  
  On the second day of February 2023, Shawn Morningstar was at the North Gas station in paleto bay, with his Black in color Sultan Classic. Near this location, the Sheriffs Department engaged in a shootout with another individual in a similarly dark colored Jugular. The defense argues that as a cause of the shootout, Mr Morningstar, in fear of his life, fled the area in the incorrect lane of travel. The defendant was fired upon by a Law Enforcement Officer, the bullet then piercing his right shoulder, which is the reason for why he drove in this manner according to the Defense. The Defendant then collided with Agent Peter Stanford's cruiser, causing a head on collision. The defendant was then subsequently arrested and searched. When searched, 2 firearms were found on him, which lead up to him receiving a charge for Illegal firearm possession.
  
  The prosecution argues, that no reasonable person, when faced with a dangerous situation like this, would put themselves in more danger, by acting in a reckless manner. The defense argues that the sole reason the defendant drove on the other side of the road on the highly populated highway, was because he was shot, and his instinct and desire to live kicked in, which caused him to commit the act of driving on the wrong lane of the highway. The defense also claims that the search of Mr Morningstars vehicle was unconstitutional and unlawful.
  
  The Court finds, that even though Shawn Morningstar was in the area of a shootout, and he was fired upon by a Law Enforcement Officer, there were other measures he could have taken to make sure he is safe, such as hiding, or driving a different direction. The probable cause was reached by the Sheriffs Department when the defendant was to be charged with Reckless Operation, allowing them to search the vehicle, which led to the discovery of the firearms, which makes all evidence found on his person and in the vehicle lawful.
  
  The Defendant will not be fined by the court for any amount regarding the case.
  
  It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
  On the count of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, I find the defendant, Shawn Morningstar, guilty.
  The precedent being set forth by the courts in this case is that the civilians of Los Santos do not have the privilege of life guaranteed by the constitution. The Defense argues that the defendant, who took the most direct path away from gunfire to preserve his life, is protected by constitutional privileges' to life and liberty.
  
  The Defense argues that San Andreas citizens have the right to life and unintentionally driving reckless to preserve that life does not meet the requirements for reckless operation. VM03 - Reckless Operation states "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a vehicle." and it is the exact opposite of what Shawn Morningstar was doing. Shawn was unintentionally present at a scene that caused him to drive reckless to preserve his life. Shawn was shot, bleeding out, and trying to take the fastest path to safety.
  
  If the courts agree that the constitution of San Andreas guarantees all citizens the privilege of life and liberty then by extension of the 14th amendment this ruling must be overturned.
  
  14th Amendment
  Section 1:
  All persons born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Shawn Morningstar v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0012

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 9th of August, 2023.

The case of the Shawn Morningstar v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0012.

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



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-AP-0012, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

Justice Allgood,

Firstly, and most importantly, the Defense argues that San Andreas citizens have the privilege to life.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in the San Andreas constitution denies the states ability to enforce any law that abridges a citizens privilege to protect their life. The defense was solely acting to protect his life; as shown in evidence #7, the officers witness statement, the defendant was shot at by the officer when he attempted to get in his car and flee the gas station. As shown in evidence #8, the defendants medical records from that day, you can see the defendant was hit by that officers gun fire.

San Andreas Constitution; Section 1: 14 Amendment

14th Amendment
Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Secondly, the defense argues that the Defendant unintentionally driving reckless to preserve his life does not meet the requirements for reckless operation which requires it to be intentional. VM03 - Reckless Operation states "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a vehicle." and it is the exact opposite of what Shawn Morningstar was doing. Shawn was shot, bleeding out, and trying to take the fastest path to safety. Mr. Morningstar was never a threat to anyone's safety at ANY point prior to being shot. Simply put; our clients intention was to save his life not to drive reckless.




We URGE the courts to make a ruling that is clear in its interpretation in regards to a citizens privilege of life afforded to them by the constitution. It is very important to set a precedent that a citizens life IS protected by the constitution, and by extension their right to preserve it.


Sincerely,
Dmitri Leroy

CEO | Rockford Law
(909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-AP-0012 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counsel
  
  Any response from the State on this matter? It is now 24 hours beyond the deadline for a response, and I plan to begin deliberating on this matter in the next coming days.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Office of the Attorney General "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Dear Honorable Hugh Allgood,
  
  
  The state has no comment on this matter and we await the Judge's ruling on the matter.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  5356160 — [email protected]

  ---

  DISCLAIMER: This message, including attachments, is confidential and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-AP-0012

A decision was reached in the above case on the September day of 2nd, 2023.

The case of #23-AP-0012 comes before the San Andreas Court of Appeals upon an appeal made by the defense from the Superior Court of San Andreas, docket # 23-CM-0038.

In this appeal, the defense argues the Presiding Judge erred in their interpretation of the law, and consequently argued the verdict was a violation of the defendant's 14th Amendment, which prohibits the government from enforcing any law that abridges their privileges and immunities, nor should the government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. The defense argues this to be true because the defendant's perspective is the choice to travel into the opposite lane of travel was as a result of evading from gunfire, and because at this point in time the defendant had been already shot, and this action was the direct-most path of travel away from further danger, and was an act taken with the specific intent of preserving their life. In this appeal, the prosecution has offered no counter arguments.

As this appeal was made by the defense, this Court will exercise unlimited review on this matter as double jeopardy is not at play (an appeal by the defense is a waiver of double jeopardy).

This Court has reviewed the voluminous amount of motions and back-and-forth arguments in 23-CM-0038. Through this review with the accompanying defense arguments in this appeal, the question up for contest is the timeline of events and the corresponding actions of the defendant, the resulting actions of agents of government, and whether these actions (including the decision of the Superior Court) infringed upon the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The pursuit from Braddocks

Upon reviewing the evidence from the initial pursuit from Braddocks associated with the 911 call, this Court has come to the conclusion that a black Jugular operated by one Frank Haswell as pursued from this location. The pursuit went northbound onto Senora Freeway, ending with a shootout at The North Store. At some point between the pursuit initiation and termination, the defendant also got to the North Store, however, the means and timeline are not exactly clear. Evidence provided in discovery suggests the defendant also drove out of Braddocks at/around the same time as the Juglar -- this is mentioned in the statement from Deputy Carter, "and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well". While there was hearty debate on "his vehicle" referring to the Jugular or the defendant's vehicle, this Court believes it is clear this statement is referring to the defendant's vehicle. In Deputy Carter's statement, the statement "his vehicle driving out of there as well" proves this statement is pertaining to the defendant's vehicle, not the Jugular. Due to a limited number of resources, the Sheriff's Department could not pursue both/all the vehicles pouring out of the farm, and chose to engage in a pursuit with the Jugular, ending with the shootout at The North Store. Therefore, this court believes it is more reasonable that the defendant after leaving Braddocks followed the general path of the pursuit, electing to stop at The North Store, which is a key conclusion in this appeal.

The shootout at The North Store
At the North Store, law enforcement were reportedly ambushed at the conclusion of the pursuit of the Jugular, being shot at by multiple black vehicles at the gas station. Statements presented in discovery linked both Mr. Haswell and the defendant together as affiliates. Drawing from the conclusion made above, this appears to be further support for the conclusion that the defendant made the choice to place themselves in the scene of a very volatile situation between armed individuals and a violent ambush of law enforcement, which is another key conclusion in this appeal.

The impact with Agent Stanford

As the evidence depicts, after the shootout at the North Store, the defendant flees the North Store southbound in the northbound lanes of Senora Freeway. In doing so, the defendant collides with Agent Stanford, who is responding to the request for assistance made by law enforcement involved in the shootout at The North Store.

Trial argument & defense appellate claim

During the trial, the Presiding Judge used the following reasoning when imposing the guilty verdict for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle;

The Court finds, that even though Shawn Morningstar was in the area of a shootout, and he was fired upon by a Law Enforcement Officer, there were other measures he could have taken to make sure he is safe, such as hiding, or driving a different direction.

Based on the defense's appellate claim, this rationale forms the major area to be reviewing by this Court, as the defense claims this verdict is enforcing a law that violates the defendant's Constitutional rights as contained under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conclusion

Drawing from the conclusions made by this Court; first, the defendant left the situation at Braddocks as law enforcement was arriving to pursue Mr. Haswell in the Jugular and ultimately driving in the same direction of the pursuit line, deciding to stop at the North Store where the shootout took place. There are two situations that come to mind. First, if the defendant arrived at The North Store before the pursuit termination and ultimate shootout, it would be more reasonable to believe the defendant was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. Alternatively, if the defendant arrived at The North Store after the pursuit termination and ultimate shootout, it would be more suggestive that the defendant made a choice to place themselves in a precarious situation.

Applying the reasonableness standard, this Court believes both scenarios to be reasonable. However, this Court believes it also more reasonable to believe in both scenarios, the defendant engaged in a decision that had a direct impact on their own safety. In the first scenario, if the defendant got in front of the pursuit line, the defendant should have seen the pursuit taking place behind him. By choosing to pull over at the gas station, the defendant could have remained in their vehicle to wait for the pursuit to pass, before exiting their vehicle. However, in this scenario, the defendant got out of their vehicle and the shootout occurred. In the alternative, the defendant could have chosen to drive away after seeing the pursuit come to an end at The North Store, and elected to take their vehicle to one of the fuel stations in Paleto Bay in the alternative. In the second scenario, if the defendant arrived at the store after the pursuit termination, the same logic applies; the defendant would have made a choice to stop at this location and exit their vehicle in the immediately area of an active and volatile law enforcement scene.

Furthermore, discovery was included suggesting the defendant and Mr. Haswell were known affiliates of each other, and this evidence was neither contested or disputed by the defense. Therefore, this Court believes this element of evidence to be true. Applying the reasonableness standard again, this Court believes it is more reasonable that a combination of two things took place; (1) the defendant placed themselves in harms way, and (2) the defendant was associated with the pursuit and subsequent ambush of law enforcement, at least by affiliation. Whether the defendant personally engaged in the ambush or not is inconsequential here. Being in the area of an ambush involving known criminal affiliates places a threat upon law enforcement, and resulting in one being treated as a threat, therefore, placing oneself in a dangerous situation.

Assessing whether the government to be depriving the defendant of their right to life, liberty or property by enforcing VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, this Court disagrees.

This Court believes the defendant voluntarily placed themselves in a volatile and dangerous situation by following the pursuit, thereby placing themselves in that situation. The defendant was caught in the midst of the shootout with law enforcement, who identified the defendant as a known criminal affiliate therefore treating the defendant as a threat to their safety. As a result, law enforcement made the decision to attempt to disable the defendant's vehicle as they attempted to drive away, and the defendant drove into the oncoming lane, rather than the correct lane of travel, of traffic to evade the area. Even if this were done to escape the shootout, there was no evidence that the defendant was pursued by law enforcement or subjected to further gun shots after getting away from the store. Therefore, the defendant should have immediately turned into the correct lane as soon as it was safe to do so. Continuing to drive into oncoming traffic was an intentional disregard for life and property (the defendant's an other members of the motoring public), and therefore, the enforcement of this law, alone, does not infringe upon the Defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights.

This appeal is denied, and the decision of the Superior Court is affirmed.


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]