Page 1 of 1
#22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 20 Jul 2022, 16:15
by Don Fritoli
Defendant Name: Joey Seretov
Defendant Phone: 3379170
Defendant Address: N/A
(( Defendant Discord: ICan'tEdit#8502 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A N/A if none
Charging Department: LSPD
Time & Date of Incident(s): July 19th, 2022
Charge(s): Evading Police, Possession of an illegal firearm
Narrative: So before anything gets started, I want to say that I am fighting my evasion charge, I fully admit to the unregistered firearm. Me and my friend started getting followed by ShenZen Dragons in Poleto, so we started going towards the city in hopes of getting to a police officer, now bear in mind this isn't our first interaction with them, we were previously robbed once and attacked twice by these guys. Once we got to the city, we were pulled over for an unknown reason. We tried explaining to the officer that we were being followed, but they insisted on a search. My friend asked why, and eventually the officer gave him 5 seconds to get out and pulled out a taser. He took off and a short chase ensued before we crashed. I was a passenger in this situation and do not believe that my license should have been suspended as never had I stepped foot or placed my hands upon a part of the driver's side of the vehicle. Had I known that he was going to drive us off and start a 10-80, I would have stepped out before he would have had the chance to take off..
I, [Joey Seretov], 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. ))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 13 Aug 2022, 09:41
by Robert Winejudge
Re: State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 13 Aug 2022, 23:25
by Haylee Star
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
|
- To whom it may concern,
I, Junior Defense Attorney Haylee Star, will be co counseling under Robert Winejudge and representing the defendant in this case.
Respectfully,
𝓗𝓪𝔂𝓵𝓮𝓮 𝓢𝓽𝓪𝓻
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 390-1560 — [email protected]
[/quote]
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 24 Aug 2022, 02:42
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 01 Sep 2022, 10:42
by Aleksandar Pulaski
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 01 Sep 2022, 20:08
by Judith Mason
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
#22-CM-0054
Presiding Judge: Judith Mason |
ORDER FOR DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
#22-CM-0054
A court order was entered in the above case on 1 September, 2022.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov, #22-CM-0054 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.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 06 Sep 2022, 16:40
by Aleksandar Pulaski
Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery
Honorable Mason,
- We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Assigned Court Case Number: 22-CM-0054
Requesting Party:
Party Members:
Exhibit #1: Los Santos Police Department
Type of Discovery:
All Information from the Discovery
Los Santos Police Department
ARREST REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"
|
MUGSHOT
- SUSPECT DETAILS
-
Full Name: Joey Seretov
Phone Number: 3379170
Licenses Suspended: Yes
Officers Involved:
- Police Detective III Elise Cavallera
- Police Detective I Belle Cavallera
- Police Officer III+1 Joseph Sanchez
- Police Officer III Dean Molloy
Charges:
- VF01 - Evading an Officer
- GM04 - Resisting Arrest
- WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons
INCIDENT NARRATIVE
- Explain what happened, no need to provide too much detail, videos could be provided
- Joey was the passenger in a Sultan Classic which fled from a traffic stop. He ran on foot and was found in possession of a Pistol .50 when caught.
EVIDENCE DETAILS
- Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
Legal possessions may be grouped and documented as "Legal Possessions". Illegal possessions must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
-
Exhibit A: Pistol .50
Exhibit B: Legal Possessions
Type of Discovery:
- Witness Statement of Police Officer III+1 Dean Molloy
All Information from the Discovery
-
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Case Number: [22-CM-0054]
Incident Date: [19/JULY/2022]
Witness Information
- Name: [Dean Molloy]
Date of Birth: [03/12/1992]
Phone Number: [2788924]
Occupation: [Police Officer]
Witness Statement
- [I Dean Molloy was directly involved in the mentioned situation involving the sultan and its 2 occupants.
As Mr. Serotov already mentioned he was the passenger of the sultan that evaded our traffic stop.At some point far as I can remember around Tequilala the driver crashed and the passenger Mr Serotov got out of the vehicle and start running while being armed with an illegal .50 Pistol.
During the traffic stop, there was an argument between myself and the occupants of the car, Mr Serotov had enough time to get out of the vehicle. When I asked them both to step out he could have just gotten out and complied but he chose to stay in the car, and after the vehicle crashed he choose to run on foot.
If he had no intention to evade why did he run, the question that was asked on the scene as well.]
Witness Affirmation
- I, [Dean Molloy], 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,
Kind Regards,
Police Officer III+1 Dean Molloy
Los Santos Police Department
Date: [02/SEP/2022]
Type of Discovery:
- Witness Statement of Police Officer III+1 Joseph Sanchez
All Information from the Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Case Number: #22-CM-0054
Incident Date: 19/JUL/2022
Witness Information
- Name: Joseph Sanchez
Date of Birth: 20/APR/2000
Phone Number: REDACTED
Occupation: Senior SWAT Officer, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- I do not remember much about this arrest. As it was over a month ago, I don't have body camera footage to review. As my arrest report states, Joey ran on foot after crashing his vehicle. Even if Joey never drove the vehicle at any point, he will still be charged with VF01 - Evading an Officer if he did not surrender immediately and had an opportunity to get out. Apologies if my statement is not of much value, as this case has taken 45 days before I'm hearing about it for the first time.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Joseph Sanchez, 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.))
Best Regards,
Police Officer III+1 Joseph Sanchez
Senior SWAT Officer, Metropolitan Division
Special Operations Bureau
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 02/SEP/2022
Sincerely,
Aleksandar Pulaski
General Prosecuting Attorney
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 08 Sep 2022, 20:15
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 15 Sep 2022, 23:34
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 17 Oct 2022, 04:25
by Hugh Allgood
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 17 Oct 2022, 15:56
by Hugh Allgood
Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment
Honorable Judith Mason,
- We the prosecution in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Assigned Court Case Number: 22-CM-0054
Requesting Party: State of San Andreas
Party Members: State of San Andreas (Attorney General Hugh R. Allgood) & Joey Seretov (Robert Winejudge)
Reasoning: Sufficient evidence for charges
Detailed explanation:
The defendant in this case admitted in their initial narrative to the unregistered firearm, so there is no dispute of the fact he was in possession of an illegal firearm.
Regarding the evading an officer charge, it is the belief of the prosecution that the court can look at the statement from Police Officer III+1 Malloy, specifically the portion that states, "During the traffic stop, there was an argument between myself and the occupants of the car, Mr Serotov had enough time to get out of the vehicle. When I asked them both to step out he could have just gotten out and complied but he chose to stay in the car, and after the vehicle crashed he choose to run on foot." As the penal code states,
Any person who, while operating a standard road vehicle, off-road vehicle, or bicycle, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to elude a pursuing law enforcement officer, is guilty of Evading an Officer.
All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act.
The defendant willfully partook in the act of attempting to evade by choosing to remain in the vehicle during the ensuing argument with law enforcement, and when demanded to exit the vehicle, he chose to stay. Furthermore, the defendant did not list the charge of "resisting arrest" as one of the charges he is contesting, but the prosecution believes the statements from POIII+1 Malloy to be especially telling here as it pertains to the intent of the defendant, "Mr Serotov got out of the vehicle and start running". It is my further belief that the defendant is intentionally trying to deceive the court in his statement, "Had I known that he was going to drive us off and start a 10-80, I would have stepped out before he would have had the chance to take off..", because this 'hindsight' reflection is contradicted by his actions at the conclusion of the pursuit. If the defendant would have stepped out before the driver drove off, then the defendant would have surrendered at the conclusion of the pursuit.
It is the position of the prosecution that the defendant was complicit in these acts, and had the reasonable motive to desire to evade law enforcement due to the possession of the illegal firearm.
It is for these reasons, I respectfully request the court grant this motion for summary judgement in favor of the State of San Andreas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Hugh R. Allgood
Attorney General
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 28 Oct 2022, 17:46
by Shaun Harper
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 29 Oct 2022, 02:16
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 11 Nov 2022, 00:57
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 23 Nov 2022, 12:24
by Cyrus Raven
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 26 Nov 2022, 22:49
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 26 Nov 2022, 23:10
by Cyrus Raven
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 02 Dec 2022, 01:59
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 03 Dec 2022, 01:29
by Hugh Allgood
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 03 Dec 2022, 19:12
by Cyrus Raven
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
|
- Honorable Judith Mason,
My client is looking to appeal the charge VF01 - Evading an Officer as confirmed by his appeal narrative. The penal code entry for VF01 - Evading an Officer states:
Any person who, while operating a standard road vehicle, off-road vehicle, or bicycle, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to elude a pursuing law enforcement officer, is guilty of Evading an Officer. All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act.
We have established through witness testimony that the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question. Instead, he was a passenger:
Joey Seretov:
I was a passenger in this situation...
Officer Dean Molloy:
As Mr. Serotov already mentioned he was the passenger of the sultan
This means that the court should focus on the second part of VF01 - Evading an Officer, specifically
All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act.
In our view, to determine if our client is guilty of this charge the court must determine that his participation was ''willfull''. The prosecution, through the witness statements provided, would like this court to believe that Mr. Seretov was fully aware of the situation and had time to get out of the car. However, we would like to present an alternative view of this narrative, one which many people in Los Santos have gone through. An individual should not be exiting any sort of vehicle during a traffic stop, unless explicitly instructed by law enforcement. Police Officers are instructed by protocol to order the driver of a vehicle to turn their engine off and to remain seated. Likewise, anyone not following these instructions that attempts to exit a vehicle, will be ordered back into the vehicle.
The Defendant stated during his appeal narrative:
We tried explaining to the officer that we were being followed, but they insisted on a search. My friend asked why, and eventually the officer gave him 5 seconds to get out and pulled out a taser. He took off and a short chase ensued before we crashed.
It is clear from the Defendant's own statement that not only was he not driving the vehicle as already proven, but the Officer at the time instructed the driver to exit the vehicle, not the Defendant. Furthermore, the Officer gave the driver 5 seconds to comply with the lawful order. It is reasonable to believe that Mr. Seretov did not step out of the vehicle because he was not explicitly told to.
The court will very likely notice that this is somewhat disputed. Specifically, Officer Dean Molloy goes on to say:
During the traffic stop, there was an argument between myself and the occupants of the car, Mr Serotov had enough time to get out of the vehicle. When I asked them both to step out he could have just gotten out and complied but he chose to stay in the car...
In essence, we have a he said/she said situation. Our client claims he wasn't instructed to exit the vehicle, his friend was. On the other hand, Officer Molloy states that he asked ''them both'' to exit the vehicle. Additionally, our client claims the driver was given ''5 seconds'' to comply. Sadly, the prosecution has failed to provide any body-cam footage from the incident. Body-cam footage is a mandatory requirement for all on-duty units within the state of Los Santos.
In conclusion, there is no dispute of the facts, our client was in the vehicle and he remained in the vehicle as the driver evaded, but he did not do this willfully. It is unclear who was instructed to exit the vehicle or how much time was given by law enforcement to comply. Likewise, our client is not appealing the resisting arrest charge, it is important to note that these are two separate charges and one should not be used as justification for the other.
As such, a not-guilty verdict on the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer should be awarded as it is clear that while there is no dispute of the main facts, there is simply not enough evidence provided to make a determination on whether our client's actions were willful or not.
Respectfully,
Cyrus Raven
Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
5356160 — [email protected]
Re: #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
Posted: 12 Dec 2022, 22:06
by Judith Mason
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov
#22-CM-0054
A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of December, 2022.
The case of #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov has been resolved.
The defendant, Joey Seretov, is accused of violating penal code entry VF01 - Evading an Officer due to his alleged willful partaking as a passenger in the eluding of law enforcement officers following a traffic stop. As this case is being concluded via a Motion for Summary Judgment, both parties agree to the facts of this case, notably being that Mr. Seretov, the passenger of the vehicle, did not exit said vehicle during the traffic stop, and further, proceeded to run from officers on foot after the vehicle crashed during the subsequent pursuit.
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.
The defense is correct in pointing out that Resisting Arrest and Evading an Officer are two separate charges, however, the defendant's decision not to dispute the resisting arrest charge within the allotted time frame has led to a default judgment of guilty on that charge. As such, the defendant's undisputed resistance to being arrested can be used as evidence in this case to point towards his intent to willfully partake in the evasion.
Had the defendant not run on foot following the collision, we would be having a different conversation more focused on the doubt raised by the defense that Mr. Seretov was not given ample opportunity to exit the vehicle, however, the court views the defendant's alleged resistance as clear evidence of the defendant's intent to willfully partake in the evasion.
As for the illegal firearms charge, the evidence of said charge is clearly included in the arrest report and the search of Mr. Seretov was lawful.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Joey Seretov, guilty.
- On the count of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons, I find the defendant, Joey Seretov, guilty.
Furthermore, in accordance with the Judicial Branch's Superior Court regulations, the court will be imposing court fees on the defendant in the amount of $25,000 to compensate the court for its time, effort, and resources expended during this case.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
