#24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post Reply
Herrman Wolff
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:36 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Herrman_Wolff

DOC Awards

SASG Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

#24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Herrman Wolff »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Herrman Wolff
Defendant Phone: 298-4429
Defendant Address: 136 Del Perro Apartments, Del Perro
(( Defendant Discord: #mcllsti ))
Requested Attorney: Shaun Harper as primary counsel, David Coast and Lisa Winter as secondary counsel, Marc Ericsson as tertiary counsel
Image
Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 07/JAN/2024 21:09
Charge(s):
  • GF07 - Felony Fraud
  • NM09 - Harassment
Narrative:
It is my belief that I was wrongfully charged and I wish to appeal these charges.



I, Herrman Wolff, 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
Last edited by Herrman Wolff on Sun Jan 07, 2024 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of January, 2024.


I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Herrman Wolff in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Image
Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
Notary Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF RECEIPT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 7th day of January, 2024.


The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

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.


Image
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Lisa Winter
Lead Paramedic
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2022 2:32 am
ECRP Forum Name: Lisa Winters

LSEMS Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Lisa Winter »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of January, 2024.


I, Lisa Winter, Senior Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Herrman Wolff in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Image
Senior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 233-5420 — [email protected]
Image
David Vespucci
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:25 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by David Vespucci »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Hermann Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of January, 2024.


I, David Coast, a Junior Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Hermann Wolff in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Image
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 593-1338— [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Mary Burrows
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:46 am
ECRP Forum Name: ethanisawfr

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Mary Burrows »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of January, 2023.


I, Mary Burrows, Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Herrman Wolff in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Tertiary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Image
Public Defense Attorney
Notary Clerk
Training and Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 07/JAN/2023.


I, Hope Kant, Attorney General of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Image
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Kendall Groyce
Judicial Branch
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:18 pm
ECRP Forum Name: idgafashlee

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Kendall Groyce »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 07/JAN/2023.


I, Kendall Groyce, a Senior Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Image
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image

Allgood Law

Entry of appearance
"Right Firm. Right Now"

  • To all concerned,

    I, Hugh R. Allgood, of Allgood Law have been retained as counsel for Herrman Wolff and hereby notify the Court and all parties of my appearance, and will join Mr. Wolff's legal team in this matter.

Respectfully,
Image
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Antonio McFornell
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Antonio McFornell »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0021

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 1st day of May, 2024.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0021.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.

So ordered,
Image
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Antonio José McFornell
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff

Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
Commend & Complain
Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
State Constitution | Penal Code
User avatar
Antonio McFornell
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Antonio McFornell »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0021

A court order was entered in the above case on 1st of May, 2024.


The case of #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.


So ordered,
Image
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Antonio José McFornell
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff

Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
Commend & Complain
Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
State Constitution | Penal Code
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0021

A Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice was filed in the above case on the 1 of May, 2024.


The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorneys, filed this Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: Charges have been dismissed without prejudice at this time
    • Detailed Explanation: The Attorney General and the Los Santos Police Department have reached the conclusion that the charges placed against the defendant are to be dismissed without prejudice at this time. This dismissal without prejudice does not overturn the statute of limitations and is a temporary dismissal until further ongoing inter-agency investigations are complete.


Image
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Hope Kant
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2884
    Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
    ECRP Forum Name:

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hope Kant »

    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Docket Notice
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    • Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

      The Prosecution would like to take this time to remind the courts of the current state of the Judicial Branch. There are currently 8 active cases. Of those 8 active cases 1 is currently pending an appeal and this one has just been dismissed. In the end we are looking at 6 active cases and 2 (possible) appeals.

      While there may be 6 total judges that can take cases, and only one on LOA that expires tomorrow. The Prosecution department has 1 total person at the moment that is qualified to take on cases as the other individuals have not been given enough trial experience or are still new to the profession.

      That being said, we would ask the courts, that, instead of opening new cases, we work to conclude the current active cases. For example, the Melody Frey case has not been touched in quite some time despite the LOA of the Judge expiring. We ask that instead of overworking a singular department, that the courts recognize the need to move through the cases that have been waiting for immediate verdict.

      As the Judges out number both Prosecuting Attorneys and Defense Attorneys, it may be beneficial for Judges to work together to determine verdicts in a more timely manor. That way instead of having 10+ active cases at one time and potentially burning out individuals, we would strive for quicker and more timely window between case activation and conclusion.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Attorney General
      Director of Public Notary
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Hugh Allgood
    Posts: 656
    Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hugh Allgood »

    Image



    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Superior Court of San Andreas
    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    DEFENSE RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE STATE'S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE


    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

    State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
    24-CM-0021

    Defense response objecting to the State's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed on the 1st of May, 2024 was filed in the above case on the 1st of May, 2024.


    Herrman Wolff, by and through the undersigned attorneys, filed this Response objecting to the State's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


    • Reasoning: violation of the defendant's 5th & 6th Amendments
      • Detailed Explanation:

        The prosecution seeks to dismiss this case upon their motion and requests such dismissal to be granted without prejudice – meaning the prosecution wishes to have the option to refile this case at some point in the future. In the State's response, the State makes mention of their intent to refile this matter at a later time. The defense objects to the motion with this condition. It is the defense’s belief if a dismissal is to be granted in this matter, the dismissal should be accompanied with finality and the State should not be permitted to refile this matter out of fairness to Mr. Wolff, but also in adherence to the Constitution.

        In support of the defense motion, the defense wishes to remind the State and Court that Mr. Wolff has a Constitutional right both a fair and speedy trial and a right to be protected from double jeopardy. Now that this case has been activated by the court, the Defense is ready to ensure Mr. Wolff’s right to a fair trial is enjoyed. However, if the Court grants this motion, Mr. Wolff’s right to a fair and speedy trial would be violated. This matter has been hanging over Mr. Wolff’s head for 4 months now, not to mention Mr. Wolff has another pending case yet to be activated by this court. If the Court grants this motion as articulated by the State, Mr. Wolff would continue to wait to enjoy his right to a fair and speedy trial, and would also gain the uncertainty on when these charges (or additional charges) would be re-filed against him looming over his head. In addition to a violation of Mr. Wolff's right to a fair and speedy trial, Mr. Wolff's right to be protected from double jeopardy would also be violated. The Defense wishes to remind the State and Court that these charges were filed on Mr. Wolff after he was ARRESTED for these charges, and Mr. Wolff has been waiting since his arrest to have this matter resolved via the judicial system. Allowing the State to subject Mr. Wolff to prosecution for the same offense twice against objection is a violation of Mr. Wolff's 6th Amendment rights.

        6th Amendment San Andreas Constitution wrote: No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.

        5th Amendment San Andreas Constitution wrote: In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…


    Image
    Attorney
    Owner
    Allgood Law
    909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

    Image
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

    Image
    Senior Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 233-5420 — [email protected]


    Image
    User avatar
    Antonio McFornell
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Antonio McFornell »

    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch


    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    • Parties,

      This Court will allow the Prosecution 72 hours to present any considerations or arguments in relation to the request presented by the defense.

      Best regards,

      Image
      Superior Court Judge
      Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    Antonio José McFornell
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
    Training & Hiring Staff

    Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
    Commend & Complain
    Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
    State Constitution | Penal Code
    User avatar
    Rowin Lawson
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2024 7:03 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: akcoffeeman

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Rowin Lawson »

    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Docket Notice
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    • Honorable Judge @Antonio McFornell ,

      The Attorney General is currently out on medical leave till the 5th of May. Due to her medical leave she will be unable to respond within the 72 hour window you requested. I have attached a link to her LOA notice.

      viewtopic.php?p=807977#p807977

      Respectfully,

      Rowin Lawson
      Junior Prosecuting Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 327-8882 — [email protected]
    User avatar
    Hope Kant
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2884
    Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
    ECRP Forum Name:

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hope Kant »

    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Docket Notice
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    • Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

      The Prosecution is confused as to how it would be double jeopardy to never charge someone in the first place, and then choose to use the information we did not charge them with to possibly charge them in the future. The way our court system works is that when you are charged, you have 7 days to submit a 'Criminal Case Submission Form' essentially this is a defendant effectively pleading 'not guilty'.

      For the statement that this constitutes a breach of double jeopardy to be true would mean that the defendant had filed an appeal. As we are in the superior court system, and not the court of appeals, the rule of double cannot apply. The defense perfectly stated it when they quoted the constitution " No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb." A motion for dismissal without prejudice is literally the prosecution stating they will not be prosecuting him at this time for the charges alleged. Meaning he is not facing prosecution for the charges even initially at this moment in time.

      Mr. Wolff will not only have the charge removed from his record, but he will also be given payment for time served plus some. A Motion for Summary Judgement without Prejudice is not saying they are guilty or not guilty. It is saying we reserve the right to use this information at a later date, if we so chose to.

      Additionally with both public and private attorneys on the case the prosecution has to wonder why the State of San Andreas is funding the defense of the defendant when he is more than able to provide for himself.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Attorney General
      Director of Public Notary
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Hugh Allgood
    Posts: 656
    Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hugh Allgood »

    Image

    Allgood Law

    Defense Response
    "Right Firm. Right Now"

    • Honorable Judge McFornell,

      To respond to the prosecution to give a final defense perspective to this Court before hopefully a ruling on the motion is rendered.
      The Prosecution is confused as to how it would be double jeopardy to never charge someone in the first place, and then choose to use the information we did not charge them with to possibly charge them in the future. The way our court system works is that when you are charged, you have 7 days to submit a 'Criminal Case Submission Form' essentially this is a defendant effectively pleading 'not guilty'.
      "when you are charged" = prosecution. Double Jeopardy: "No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice"

      In San Andreas, charges are filed at the time of a person's arrest. We are only arguing this case because Mr. Wolff has filed an appeal of these charges. The "payment" Mr. Wolff gets when a case is dismissed or via acquittal is a remedy for time already spent incarcerated. Contrast this with a individual who is arrested (therefore charged) but does not appeal their charges. That individual could not be re-charged for the same offense without violating double jeopardy. The same should apply here.

      Mr. Wolff has already been charged, has had to wait an extensive period of time to get to this stage, and now the prosecution is desiring to dismiss the case without any penalty to them because they are 'not ready' to prove their case -- and effectively promise to re-file the charges after " further ongoing inter-agency investigations are complete.", which will repeat the entire cycle of waiting for another trial, which is tradition holds will easily be many months. If the Court agrees to dismiss without prejudice over the Defense's objection, Mr. Wolff would honestly be lucky to get this resolved within the 2024 calendar year. As noted in the Defense response, we believe this 'cycle' will subject Mr. Wolff to a deprivation of his right to speedy trial, and will also subject Mr. Wolff to a subsequent prosecution.
      The Attorney General and the Los Santos Police Department have reached the conclusion that the charges placed against the defendant are to be dismissed without prejudice at this time. This dismissal without prejudice does not overturn the statute of limitations
      In other words, the Attorney General and Los Santos Police Department does not feel the charges against Mr. Wolff are viable, and want more time to "investigate" and make a stronger case. The Los Santos Police Department felt comfortable enough to ARREST Mr. Wolff for these alleged charges, and the Defense believes there should not be any need for "further ongoing inter-agency investigations are complete". You don't get to arrest someone and then take a "timeout" and get a do-over. This is someone's life that you are dealing with. As the former Attorney General myself, I know the Los Santos Police Department could have chosen to investigate this matter in conjunction with the Attorney General and chosen to have Mr. Wolff charged via indictment, rather than arrest. This process allows the Los Santos Police Department to request an indictment, the Attorney General could have reviewed it, and if there were "further ongoing inter-agency investigations" to conduct, the Attorney General could explain what was needed to the Los Santos Police Department to do before agreeing to file an indictment. The fact the Los Santos Police Department chose to bypass this process and jump straight to an arrest, the Defense believes they have waived their ability to investigate further and the Attorney General must prove the case as it is.
      For the statement that this constitutes a breach of double jeopardy to be true would mean that the defendant had filed an appeal.
      This is very much an appeal. The Court of Appeals is for an appeal of an affirmed conviction due to disagreement with the conviction or errors in legal procedure.
      Additionally with both public and private attorneys on the case the prosecution has to wonder why the State of San Andreas is funding the defense of the defendant when he is more than able to provide for himself.
      This is not really within the purview of the Attorney General and is merely a tactic to detract from the issue at hand. Mr. Wolff has a right to counsel; whether private or public, or both. Just because Mr. Wolff was able to retain Allgood Law does not mean Wolff "is more than able to provide for himself."

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Owner/Attorney
    Allgood Law
    (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
    Image
    User avatar
    Hope Kant
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2884
    Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
    ECRP Forum Name:

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hope Kant »

    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Docket Notice
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    • Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

      The prosecution is frankly exhausted by this narrative spun by the defense out of pure ignorance. How could the prosecution possibly submit motions to amend charges if these cases are considered appeals? We have a Superior Court that houses CRIMINAL cases. We have the Court of Appeals where you can APPEAL a verdict found in your criminal court case. Nowhere in the criminal case submission form does it state you are appealing charges. The prosecution does not feel that wasting their time responding to this baseless argument would be useful and would prefer to move on to the ruling.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Attorney General
      Director of Public Notary
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Antonio McFornell
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Antonio McFornell »

    Image


    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Superior Court of San Andreas

    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    • Parties,

      The Superior Court considers that it has been enlightened plenty in regards to the motion presented by the arguments provided by the defense and the prosecution. With that in mind, a decision will be taken during the next 48 hours.

      Both parties are informed that from this point forward, no more interventions will be allowed until after the decision by the presiding judge, should the case continue on the docket after said decision.

      So ordered,
      Image
      Superior Court Judge
      Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    Antonio José McFornell
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
    Training & Hiring Staff

    Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
    Commend & Complain
    Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
    State Constitution | Penal Code
    User avatar
    Antonio McFornell
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Antonio McFornell »

    Image


    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Superior Court of San Andreas
    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    COURT DECISION


    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

    State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
    #24-CM-0021

    A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of Month, 2024.


    Motion & Arguments
    Following the activation of #24-CM-0021 and the subsequent Motion for Discovery, the prosecution filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice on May 1st, 2024. The reasoning behind said request stated that the Office of the Attorney General, along with the Los Santos Police Department, determined that a temporary dismissal was necessary in order to carry out inter-agency investigations.

    As a response to the previously mentioned dismissal, the defense objected to the State’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice on the basis that it constituted a violation of the defendant’s 5th and 6th amendment rights. Particularly, the defense argued that the prosecution wishing to have the right to re-file their case at a later date (after the presumed inter-agency investigations) breached their constitutional rights to a speedy and public trial. Furthermore, the defense adds that allowing the prosecution to eventually pursue Mr. Wolff for the charges in question would constitute double jeopardy, given that he is appealing his conviction through the ongoing proceeding.

    The Superior Court allowed the Prosecution 72 hours to present any arguments that they might’ve had in relation to the defense’s response. This period of time was extended given that the primary counsel of the case was on Leave of Absence.

    Upon their return, on May 5th, a responde was filed by the Prosecution. The Attorney General argued that there would be no possibility of double jeopardy since Mr. Wolff was never charge[d]. Consequently, the prosecution argued that submitting a Criminal Case Submission Form essentially constitutes pleading not guilty in a particular situation. They continued to add that the Superior Court doesn’t hear appeals, and in that regard, there’s no possibility of committing double jeopardy. Furthermore, they added that the motion for dismissal meant that the State would not be prosecuting Mr. Wolff at the time. It was clarified that Mr. Wolff would have their conviction removed from their record, as well as payment as compensation.
    The prosecution finalized their arguments by stating that their dismissal does not pretend to hold Mr. Wolff as guilty or not guilty, but rather as a way to reserve the right to use the information at a later date.

    The defense argues that being charged can be interpreted equally as being prosecuted, and in that regard, filing a Criminal Submission essentially constitutes an appeal of the charges levied against the defendant. The defense also questioned the State’s unreadiness to prove the case against the defendant.

    The prosecution presented a final argument clarifying, in their view, the extend in which the word appeal should be interpreted in the ongoing matter.

    The Superior Court will not evaluate the comments presented on the Docket Notice #1 submitted to the Docket on May 1st, 2024 given that it contains considerations that are not subject to evaluation by the Superior Court at this time. The same measure will be adopted in regards to the final paragraph of the Docket Notice presented by the Prosecution on the 5th of May, 2024.

    Considerations
    The Superior Court believes that allowing the prosecution to dismiss the case, and retaining the right to use the information related to it at a later date, exposes in these particular circumstances the defendant to an excessive, unlimited or otherwise uncontrolled degree of interference against their constitutional rights by the State -whether be it by the Prosecution, by the Police Department or by any authority who would utilize said information at a later date-, and thus ignores the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.

    The prosecution has argued that filing a criminal case does not constitute an appeal. However, it is the interpretation of the presiding judge that the word appeal makes reference to two different actions -at least within the context of the Courts of our legal system-. Particularly:
    1. The first -and less technical- interpretation of the word appeal makes reference to the request that citizens file after their arrest and conviction in order to be formally acquitted, have their record cleared and be recognized remedies.
    2. The second interpretation of the word appeal makes reference to formally presenting a disagreement with a decision taken by a Judge (such as denying motions, suppressions or a final verdict in a criminal case) for it to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals

    With the above consideration in mind, it is clear that what the defendant intends to achieve through filing the criminal case that led to these proceedings, is to have their arrest and conviction undone, to be acquitted of the charges for which he served time, and eventually seek remedies.

    In the eyes of the Superior Court, the presumption of legality extends to the actions of law enforcement agencies within the State. It is with this presumption in mind that the Court finds it reasonable to consider that the Los Santos Police Department had sufficient evidence on the 7th of January, 2024, to levy charges of GF07 and NM09 against the defendant.
    Acknowledging the fallibility of law enforcement agencies is crucial. Mistakes can and do occur, and the Court understands this reality. However, what becomes intolerable is the prolongation of the defendant's case. While the Court is empathetic towards the potential for errors, it cannot overlook the passage of four months since the charges were initially brought against the defendant. At the time of levying these charges, it is presumed that the LSPD possessed evidence supporting the arrest. Any further delay in this case becomes increasingly untenable.

    Decision
    Considering the points outlined above, the Court rejects the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice presented by the State. In turn, the Court would allow said motion with Prejudice, however, this is a decision that can only be taken by the State.

    Should these proceedings move on to trial, given the statements provided herein, these will be adopting the format of a docket trial to expedite its completion.

    So ordered,
    Image
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 553-8869 — [email protected][/list]
    Image
    Image
    Antonio José McFornell
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
    Training & Hiring Staff

    Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
    Commend & Complain
    Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
    State Constitution | Penal Code
    User avatar
    Hope Kant
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2884
    Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
    ECRP Forum Name:

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Hope Kant »

    Image



    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Superior Court of San Andreas
    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL


    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

    State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
    #24-CM-0021

    A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 15th of May, 2024.


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


    • Reasoning: The Prosecution in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.




    Image
    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Antonio McFornell
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
    ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

    Post by Antonio McFornell »

    Image


    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Superior Court of San Andreas
    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    COURT DECISION


    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

    State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
    #24-CM-0021

    A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of May, 2024.


    In light of the recent appeal filed by the Prosecution and the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, the Superior Court hereby accepts the motion and orders all proceedings on the docket to be halted until the Court of Appeals decides on the matter of State v. Wolff

    So ordered,
    Image
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    Antonio José McFornell
    Superior Court Judge
    Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
    Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
    Training & Hiring Staff

    Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
    Commend & Complain
    Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
    State Constitution | Penal Code
    Post Reply

    Return to “SAJB - Active Criminal Cases”

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests