#22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Locked
User avatar
Antonio McFornell
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

SAJB Awards

#22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Antonio McFornell »

Image
Image
Appellant Name: Mike Bartowski
Appellant Attorney(s): Tony McFornell, Peit Vanniekerk, Cyrus Raven
Image
Trial Docket Number: #22-CM-0034
Presiding Trial Judge: Hon. Darcy Valor
Notice of Appeal Filed:
  • [ ] Before Verdict
    [X] After Verdict
Image
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
  • [ ] Motion to be overturned
    [X] 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)
  • Error in the judge's interpretation of the law in relation to DM02
    Mr. Mike Bartowski was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance while armed, however, as it currently stands, there is no doctrine, law or jurisprudence that clearly outlines or determines the way "controlled substance" has to be interpreted. In other words, at the time of Mr. Bartowski's arrest there wasn't -and still isn't- any clear indication of which substances lie in the spectrum of controlled substances or illegal drugs.

    Since there is no definition of what is a controlled substance, it would be impossible to assume that Mr. Bartowski was -at any time- in possession of said substances. Considering otherwise would be a direct breach of the rule of law and the principle of legality.

    Error in the trial's procedure in relation to the interpretation of proof
    According to the presumption of innocence, Mr. Bartowski was not guilty of any wrongdoings nor should he have been suspected according to what had been narrated throughout the first instance of this case in the Superior Court. However, even with no proof provided by the prosecution, the presiding judge considered that a single statement provided by Deputy Paulo Witherfork constitutes enough proof to justify the illegal search and seizure carried out on Mr. Bartowski's possesions.
    With this being said, and adding the fact that the prosecution -at the sheriff department's fault- failed to provide any proof that would justify the searching of Mr. Bartowski's belongings, this judgement opens the door to the creation of very dangerous precedent consisting in lowering the standards at which police officers and deputies are held when it comes to searching vehicles and citizens' belongings. The precedent, as it currently stands, would imply that a simple written statement or arrest report would be enough for this honorable court to uphold any kind of charge.

    It must be reiterated that the prosecution -after the defense's request- failed to produce any body camera footage, or direct evidence that would prove Mr. Bartowski's guilt, or even probable cause to carry out a search.
Image
Image
Antonio José McFornell
Court Clerk
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
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    I am Chief Justice Colt Daniels and I will be presiding over this case in my courtroom. At this point in time, I will be assigning this case to docket number #22-AP-0004.

    I will be asking both parties to submit a initial written brief outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why I should rule in their favor. After each party has submitted a brief, I will schedule a hearing for any further oral arguments to be made in person before issuing a decision.

    Respectfully,

    Chief Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [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-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief - #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Colt Daniels,

    The Defense is appealing the verdict on two grounds, both of which have been outlined initially by former Senior Defense Tony McFornell.
    1. At the time, Mr. Bartowski was charged with ''DM02 - Possession of a controlled substance while armed'' (now DM04). While the charge definition has remained largely unchanged, at the time there was no official definition for what was to be considered a ''controlled substance'', an issue which was fixed after this situation under the new drug legislation. As such it is our view that it would be an over reach of the Judicial Branch to uphold a charge by which there was no publicly available or stated controlled substances in any government document. As such we would argue Mr. Bartowski was not in possession of a controlled substance at the time of his arrest.
    2. During the discovery phase, the prosecution provided a single witness statement and arrest report, both by Deputy Paulo Witherfork. The defense argues that this is an unreasonable lack of evidence and would supply both #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas and #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov as precedent on the matter.
      The presentation of evidence by the prosecution is a key step in every trial throughout all jurisdictions within the United States - the State of San Andreas is no exception. We require that, should a case come through the Superior Court, the prosecution must present evidence and arguments to show the court that the defendant is guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a rather high standard but it is an essential standard to the effective administration of justice and must be met in all criminal cases that are being prosecuted in the state.
      The defense argues that a single witness statement and arrest report is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the alleged crimes that led to the search and seizure of Mr Bartowski's items. Having failed to establish probable cause for the search and seizure that occurred any items seized would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree. Especially considering the arresting Deputy himself states that the vehicle yielded. If the standard is ''reasonable doubt'' then it would reasonable to assume that Mr. Bartowski yielded and stopped his vehicle as he noticed he was being pulled over and not ''both BF400s proceeded to evade up a nearby'' as the Deputy initially claimed.
    As such, the Defense requests a favorable verdict in favor of the Defendant as he was not in possession of a controlled substance at the time in any sense of the law at the time. Furthermore, any other items seized were done without having established the commission of a crime that would allow the Deputy to search the suspect or his vehicle.
    Respectfully,

    Image
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [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-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief - #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Colt Daniels,

    The Prosecution notes that the Defense is appealing making their appeal on two separate grounds, on which we will go over chronologically.

    1. Supposed error in the judge's interpretation of the law in relation to DM02
    The Defense claims that at the time of the arrest of the Appellant, no official definition of the term "controlled substance" was available and, with the new drug legislation in mind, this would now be considered an over reach.

    The Prosecution notes that in the event of no definition of a term being available in any form of law, the general consensus is that the meaning of the word itself is meant by the legislator. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that the term "controlled substance" is per dictionary as follows:
    Any of a category of behavior-altering or addictive drugs, as heroin or cocaine, whose possession and use are restricted by law.
    The Prosecution notes that as per evidence exhibit #1 as previously presented to the court, the Defendant was in possession of processed marijuna, which is considered a psychoactive ("mind-altering") drug due to the relative high concentration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. Following the above, the Prosecution deems it clear and without a shadow of a doubt that the processed marijuana as found on the Appellant is to be considered a controlled substance.

    Additionally, further to the argument that new legislation has been introduced since this incident, the Prosecution notes that appeals for application for criminal law should always be judged from an ex tunc perspective, rather than an ex nunc perspective.

    2. Error in the trial's procedure in relation to the interpretation of proof
    The Defense claims that an arrest report in combination with a detailed witness statement about the events is not enough grounds for the justification of a search.

    Primarily, the Prosecution notes that as per evidence exhibits #1 and #2 as previously presented to the court, it should be abundantly clear that given the non-confined nature of the motorbike, it is impossible for a person not to hear police sirens nor to see the flickering lights of a police cruiser behind you especially taking into account the fact that the time between the start and stop of the pursuit.

    Subsidiarily, in the case the court argues that this clear evasion should be viewed as a routine traffic stop, the Prosecution argues that although officers who have stopped a car to issue a routine traffic citation may conduct a Terry-type search, even including a pat-down of driver and passengers if there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous, they may conduct a full-blown search of the car, among other things, if:
    • they exercise their discretion to arrest the driver, which given the fact that the Appellant evaded from an officer is very likely; and
    • they have probable cause to believe there is contraband in the vehicle, which given the witness statement of Deputy Witherfork the smell of marijuana, which as publicly known is a very strong and distinctive smell, is evident.
    More subsidiarily, the Prosecution notes that in the case of #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich the court has previously ruled that in a situation where the Defendants' narrative aligns with both an arrest report as well as a supporting witness statement, these statements are in conjunction and provide clear and enough evidence for the substantiation of the facts of the case.

    Finally, the Prosecution notes that the Defense has exceeded the maximum amount of words in the Grounds for Appeal section of the appeal.

    Following the arguments as listed above, the Prosecution can only conclude that the appeal as filed by the Appellant should be denied.


    Respectfully,


    Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Counselors,

    Thank you for your written submissions on this case. At I would like to schedule a hearing for oral arguments to be presented to the court to supplement your written responses. Please use this scheduling tool to mark your availability over the coming week.

    Respectfully,

    Chief Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Counselors,

    I will once again be attempting to schedule oral arguments to be had in my courtroom. Please use the following scheduling tool to mark availability. Once completed I will announce the time.

    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-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I will be on an approved Leave of Absence from the October 25, 2022 until November 12, 2022. As such, I am not able to make any of the above listed timeslots for the hearing. Following this, I would like to kindly ask to postpone this hearing until my return.

Respectfully,

Senior 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-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Your Honor,

    Given the facts and circumstances of the underlying case, the arguments already provided through the written brief from both sides as well as to be efficient in the use of our resources and the very nature of this very appeal court, I would like to propose a written conclusion from yourself to conclude this appeal, of course if the Defense agrees with this proposal.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
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-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Appeal Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Colt Daniels,

    The defense has no issue with a decision for this appeal being made on the docket, unless any further clarification is needed from either party.


    Respectfully,

    Image
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: #22-AP-0004, Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

COURT DECISION - #22-AP-0004


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Mike Bartowski v. State of San Andreas
#22-AP-0004


CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
DM02 - Possession of a Controlled Substance While Armed


A decision was reached in the above case on the 4th day of December, 2022.

  • Once again, the appellant in this case is seeking an overturning of the guilty verdict on the count that was originally filed in Superior Court Case #22-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Mike Bartowski. This count was:
    • DM02 - Possession of a Controlled Substance While Armed

    With regards to the argument that Marijuana Plants and Processed Marijuana are not considered controlled substances within the state due to, at that time, any clear indication of which substances lie in the spectrum of controlled substances or illegal drugs, the San Andreas Court System has always held before the Penal Code Amendment of August 7th, that marijuana both plants, and processed are considered a controlled substance and have published verdicts supporting that stance.

    In regards to the argument that the search conducted by Deputy Witherfork was unlawful, the court finds that while Mr. Bartowski was not charged with Felony Evading, now known as Evading an Officer, the deputy chose to use officer discretion to not place that charge due to his eventual compliance and being a first-time offender. However, if charged the court would likely find Mr. Bartowski guilty due to being given ample opportunity to stop his vehicle after fleeing up the mountain. Due to this the deputy had probable cause, also referred to as reasonable grounds to conduct the search of Mr. Bartowski leading to the discovery of the controlled substance.

    Therefore, the guilty verdict issued on DM02 - Possession of a Controlled Substance While Armed made by the lower court is affirmed.



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

Return to “SAJB - Archived Appeal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests