#22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Locked
Martin James
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 13, 2022 9:31 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

#22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Martin James »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Martin James
Defendant Phone: 2286946
Defendant Address: Undisclosed
(( Defendant Discord: Pegasus_#4123))
Requested Attorney: N/A
Image
Charging Department: LSSD
Image
Time & Date of Incident(s): 18/JUL/2022 | 25/JUL/2022
Charge(s): Failure to Pay a Fine
Narrative:
I have been out of town for the last 8 or 9 days due to a personal emergency. I was not aware I had any fines to pay before I left, and when I got back late Sunday night I paid them off straight away. Payments record will confirm this. While driving with some people towards the city today, we get stopped and IDed, officers saying I had a warrant for failure to pay. They tell me some deputy, badge #6374, charged me on the 18th. Now I hadn't even been in the city since the 16th, so I find it hard to find a reason for any law enforcement officer to simply search people up on their database, just to charge them. Had I been taken in from a stop while the tickets were still up after a week, or anytime overdue really, I would have had no problem. But the fact that they went out of their way to look me up randomly on some hero-quest to fine me while I'm away, that just screams abuse of power and mistrust in the state's so-called peacekeepers.


I, [Martin James], 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
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Martin James
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

Respectfully,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Peit Vanniekerk
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:04 am
ECRP Forum Name: Kabubu2

Re: State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Peit Vanniekerk »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Defense Attorney Peit Vanniekerk, will take on the role of defending Martin James in this case.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 485-1978 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image




San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"


#22-CM-0058
Presiding Judge: Colt Daniels

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#22-CM-0058

A court order was entered in the above case on the 1st of October, 2022.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Martin James, #22-CM-0058 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 the evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.




Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]


Image
User avatar
Peit Vanniekerk
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:04 am
ECRP Forum Name: Kabubu2

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Peit Vanniekerk »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Colt Daniels,

    I am withdrawing myself from this case as I am still not available to take it.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 485-1978 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Daniels,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Marin James
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0058
    Requesting Party: N/A
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Exhibit #1: Time and Date logs
    Type of Discovery: Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery This log taken from the record of the Defendant shows the time between him receiving two separate fines and the charge Failure to Pay a Fine being applied after the mentioned 72 hours in the Penal Code.
    • Image


Sincerely,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Preliminary Ruling

Honorable Daniels,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting a preliminary ruling.
    State of San Andreas v. Martin James
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0058
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Reasoning: The facts of the case are clear, however the interpretation of applicability of the law is not.
    Detailed explanation:
    The State of San Andreas Penal Code states the following in relation to this charge:
    GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine - Failure to Pay a Fine for longer than the allowed time of 72 hours.
    The Prosecution notes that with reference to evidence exhibit #1 as previously presented to the court, the facts and circumstances of the case are clear. However, following the above, the Prosecution can't help but wonder and would like to receive clarity on whether a Defendant should receive any form of leeway in cases where a Defendant has been out of state for a while. The Prosecution further notes that this question would inevitably come up in a hearing or trial and would like to save valuable time and resources for both parties.

    The Prosecution therefore would like to request a preliminary ruling about the following question: is it accepted for a law enforcement officer to look up the record of a specific person to place the GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine charge?

    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Court Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honourable Colt Daniels ,

    I, Chief Public Defender Cyrus Raven, will be taking over this case and representing the defendant Martin James.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Motion to Compel Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery

Honorable Colt Daniels,

  • We the Defense in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
    State of San Andreas v. Martin James
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0058
    Requesting Party: Cyrus Raven
    Party Members: Cyrus Raven, Martin James
    Discovery from: Los Santos Police Department

    Type of Discovery:
    • Ticket Payment Information
    Detailed reasoning:
    • The Defense is requesting the time and date the tickets issued on 15/07/2022 - 10:29:50 and 15/07/2022 10:28:21 were paid. This evidence will serve to outline whether or not the Defendant did pay the tickets in time or past the 72 hour period.


Sincerely,

Image
Cyrus Raven
Chief Public Defender
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Daniels,

    The Prosecution feels that, given the narrative of the Defendant, the Motion to Compel Discovery as put on the docket by the Defense is unneccesary.

    We quote the following:
    Martin James wrote: I have been out of town for the last 8 or 9 days due to a personal emergency. I was not aware I had any fines to pay before I left, and when I got back late Sunday night I paid them off straight away. Payments record will confirm this.
    The Prosecution finds it obvious the only legal question is the explanation of the misdemeanor charge itself as requested through the Motion for Preliminary Ruling and is disappointed given the disproportionality of the request by the Defense.

    Following the above, the Prosecution requests the Motion to Compel Discovery be denied.

Respectfully,


Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image


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

COURT DECISION - #22-CM-0058


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#22-CM-0058


CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine


A decision was reached on the Preliminary Ruling on the 12th day of October, 2022.

  • The penal code states for GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine, "Failure to Pay a Fine for longer than the allowed time of 72 hours." The court believes that this description leaves no room for interpretation and should be taken in the literal sense.

    A person who receives a citation of any kind that has a monetary cost higher than $0 associated with it must pay that ticket within 72 hours from the time the ticket was issued. In the penal code, some citations and charges have exemptions listed for them, cited VC04 - Illegal Parking, however GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine is not one of them.

    I will also note, law enforcement officers may use discretion if department policy allows them, there is no legal definition on officer discretion but is most widely accepted description states ""A public officer has discretion whenever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction." this means officers may use discretion on whether someone is deserving of a citation or charge and could opt not to place one they believe is fitting. This however does not mean they not guilty of said citation or charge, that would be up the the courts should the defendant wish to have their case heard.

    In terms of the question, "Is it accepted for a law enforcement officer to look up the record of a specific person to place the GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine charge." The court believes this is not a question of law that needs to be decided, as a law enforcement officer your job is clear, enforce the law. If an officer believes a law has been violated in any capacity they are well within their realm of duties to enforce it. This questions is better suited for an inquiry of department policy, as far as the court is concerned, anyone who is in violation of the law should be held accountable.


    Chief Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Counselors,

    I will be granting the defenses Motion to Compel Discovery as the court believes that the requested evidence is vital to know if the penal code was violated in relation to GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine. As ruled in the San Andreas Court of Appeal case of #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas the court held that "while this confession does give probable cause that a crime has been committed, it cannot be the sole evidence provided to prove the fact of the matter."

    At this time I will allow 7 days for the prosecution to collect this evidence. If further time is needed please file a Motion for Continuance.

    Respectfully,

    Chief Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Daniels,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Marin James
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0058
    Requesting Party: N/A
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Exhibit #2: Payment logs
    Type of Discovery: Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery This log taken from the record of the Defendant shows that the Defendant did not pay any fine.
    • **note**
      (( Image ))


Sincerely,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image
Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict


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

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - 22-CM-0058


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
22-CM-0058

CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine

A verdict was entered in the above case on the 13th day of October, 2022.


  • The case of #22-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Martin James has been resolved.

    On October 13th 2022 a Court Hearing was held on this case. The prosecution filed a verbal Motion for Summary Judgement expressing that due to the recent Motion for Discovery presenting evidence Exhibit #2: Payment Logs, there was now no dispute about the facts of the case. Furthermore the defense in this case agreed with the motion and presented arguments as to why the courts should rule in favor of the defendant.

    Ultimately the courts granted the motion and made a verdict on the case citing Exhibit #2 that no tickets were paid on the days listed by the defendant and he was in fact in violation of GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine due to the crime description of not paying them in the 72 hour window provided.

    It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
    • On the count of GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine, I find the defendant, Martin James, guilty.

    Both the prosecution and defense expressed that the defendant should have the court fee waived on this case. As the presiding judge on this case, I granted that request and waived the fee.


    Chief Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests