#25-CM-0040 State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci
25-CM-#0040

A Notification of Change in Counsel was filed in the above case on the 5th day of January, 2026.

Please be advised that effective immediately, Hope Kant will assume the role of Primary Counsel in the above-referenced matter. All future correspondence, filings, and communications should be directed to their attention.

Should you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out.


Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  As the Court has made three different unsuccessful attempts at scheduling this matter for an in-person trial, and after consultation with Counsel, the Court has decided to conclude this matter via a Docket Trial. The Court believes this is the best way considering judiciary resources to get this case resolved, and the two other cases involving its Co-Defendants resolved. One of the cases, #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran is being held in an in-person trial.
  
  In accordance with the process outlined in the self-representation database, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to provide their opening statement and case-in-chief within the next 72 hours (by 11:59PM on 10/Jan/2026). The Defense is then ordered to provide the same within 72 hours of when the Prosecution posts (by 11:59PM 3 days following the date the Prosecution makes their docket entry).
  
  Once both the Prosecution and Defense have made their opening arguments and provided their case-in-chief, both sides will be given 72 hours, simultaneously, to announce any objections (if any) to what the other side has presented. This stage does not require intervention of the Court - the 72 hour timer (by 11:59PM 3 days following, for ease of setting deadlines) will start as soon as both sides have made their entry. The court will allow one response from each side, and will not tolerate a back-and-forth during this 72 hours.
  
  After the objection period has closed, the Court will review any objections and will rule on them.
  
  Once a ruling on objections have been made, the Prosecution will be given 72 hours (again, 3 days following by 11:59) to present their closing arguments. The Defense will be given 72 hours following the Prosecution's argument, or at the end of the Prosecution's deadline, whichever comes first - the Court will define the date deadlines when this time comes, to present their closing arguments. As the Prosecution has the burden of proof, the Court will allow the Prosecution an additional 72 hours after the Defense's closing arguments to make a final rebuttal argument. The Court will assume no argument is to be made either upon notice of the Prosecution that such rebuttal is not being made, or the lapsing of the 72 hour deadline.
  
  After the conclusion of these stages, the Court will consider all evidence and arguments and will render a verdict on the docket.
  
  Again, the Court acknowledges this is likely not the preferred way to conclude this trial. But scheduling attempts have been ongoing for the past 4 months with no other viable options, with several changes in representation on both sides.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Judge
  Interim Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice was filed in the above case on the 10th day of January, 2026.

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

• Reasoning: The prosecution in conjunction with the Los Santos Sheriffs Department has made the decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. We understand the last minute nature of the dismissal and apologize. The prosecution department faced a recent change, which took us a bit to get up to speed on all of the matters at hand.
  
  (( Given the mix between the voided and now unavailable evidence, we have chosen to move forward with only the in person trial so as not to end the RP already scheduled. ))

Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[David Vespucci]

Am I, the defendant, gonnna get some cha ching for this major breach of my rights?

[Hugh Allgood]

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. David Vespucci (Deltoid)
#25-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of January, 2026.

Upon the State's motion to voluntarily dismiss the charges against the Defendant, with prejudice, the Court finds no reason to not grant such motion as the State has the ultimate burden of proof.

The disputed charge(s) of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, GF21 - Prison Break, GF05 - Extortion (Gov. Emp.), GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto (Gov. Emp.), SF04 - Kidnapping (Gov. Emp.), and SF01 - Domestic Terrorism, will be removed from the record of the defendant. Thank you to both parties, this case is hereby dismissed.

The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $104,625 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[David Vespucci]

Your honour, I think your math is off.

Are you taking into account the modifiers?