#22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Locked
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

#22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image
Image
Appellant Name: Harley Pavlovich
Appellant Attorney(s): Cyrus Raven
Image
Trial Docket Number: #22-CM-0050
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Colt Daniels
Notice of Appeal Filed:
  • [ ] Before Verdict
    [X] After Verdict
Image
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
  • [ ] Motion to be overturned
    [ ] 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)
  • The defense is seeking an appeal with regards to the case #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich on the grounds of error in the interpretation of the law.

    Specifically, we are looking to appeal WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons and VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment. The former due to the lack of the alleged weapon found in the vehicle being available as evidence and the latter due to the interpretation of what actions should be classed as felony public endangerment.
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    I am Associate Justice Judith Mason 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-0005.

    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,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [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-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    As initially stated, the Defense is appealing the charges of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons and VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment. The former due to the lack of the alleged weapon found in the vehicle being available as evidence and the latter due to the interpretation of what actions should be classed as felony public endangerment.


    WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons
    • The first part of the appeal centers around the issue of evidence availability. Specifically, if a serial number and a witness statement affirming that a weapon was found is enough to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of a weapon in relation to the criminal charge ''WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons''.

      The defense argues that more evidence needs to be available to prove that a weapon was not only found in the Defendant's vehicle, but that it was in her possession.

      While the Defendant's statement acknowledges a weapon was retrieved, we have no further context surrounding the search, no further witnesses statements from other units present, nor any body-cam footage from any of the arresting ground units.

      It is standard protocol for any evidence found in relation to a crime to be stored in their appropriate lockers. While our defense may appear far fetched it is necessary as such a precedent has severe implications on future cases if the difference between a large sentence or freedom is easily swayed by circumstantial evidence.

      To note, the Defense requested evidence locker logs specifically for this purpose, although any other supplemental evidence, including a picture of the .50 pistol, would have been acceptable. In this matter we are and will always remain flexible given the busy nature of our Law Enforcement Agencies and hard to understand evidence logs. However, in our view a minimum standard for evidence availability must be set, as such the lack of the physical item allegedly retrieved, in our view, invalidates the charges issued by the Los Santos Sheriff's Department with regards to WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and being able to present the firearm which led to the charge against our client seems like a fair and easy request to comply with.

      More importantly, it is part of the prosecution's obligations to present evidence to the court during discovery that not only makes their case, but likewise exculpatory evidence which might prove the Defendant's innocence. As such, given the constant issues surrounding the .50 pistol, the Defense argues it was a reasonable request to ask for evidence of the weapon beyond a serial number and witness statement.
    VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
    • The Defense argues that the intent behind the charge ''VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment'' has not been correctly reflected in this case's verdict.
      It is the decision of the courts that due to the defendants driving where she went onto the public sidewalk, shown once again in the air units footage of the situation, the defendant did in fact posse a major risk to public safety through the unsafe operation of that motor vehicle.
      To provide our argument, we must briefly look at other related charges.

      VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle:
      Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle.
      VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle:
      Failing to use reasonable care while operating a vehicle, which could lead to personal injuries and damages to one or more vehicles.
      It is our argument that the Defendant being both charged with Felony Public Endangerment and Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle is not appropriate for the situation at hand. Reckless Operation, a charge which was already initially levied at the Defendant, already covers the sort of driving style which this court heavily disagreed with. ''Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle.''

      The decision given states that ''she went onto the public sidewalk, shown once again in the air units footage of the situation'' and while this is true, this was for brief moments and not at all for extended periods of time, immediately returning to the road.

      We argue that a vehicle driving on a sidewalk for less than a second at a time is indeed an intentional disregard for life, which is why we agree with the court's decision to uphold the Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle charge. However, the court needs to take a purposive approach to the charge of VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, this charge is meant to be used in situations of extreme danger to the general populous through the use of a vehicle or weapon. (e.g Active shootouts in public spaces/roads, constantly operating your vehicle in heavily populated areas not accessible by vehicles, constantly operating your vehicle in the incorrect lane of travel, etc...). Creating a precedent for the use of this charge in combination with reckless operation for briefly driving on a sidewalk needlessly increases sentences and likewise makes them virtually synonymous to each-other, eliminating any meaningful distinction between the two. While there are certainly situations where both charges are merited, we argue this is not one of them.

      As such, the Defense does not deny that the Defendant operated her vehicle on the sidewalk. However, we feel like the original charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle which was likewise upheld by the superior court is sufficient given the circumstances.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Chief Public Defender
      San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
      5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Attorney Marchisio,

    Please supply the court with a written brief outlining your position as the respondent of this case within 7 days of this notice.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [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-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

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

    1. WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons

    The Prosecution notes that we are unable to phrase the reasoning behind this charge any better than Honorable Daniels in his original verdict:
    When looking at evidence for the charge of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons, there are multiple documents that confirmed this firearm was found inside the defendants vehicle, one of them being the arrest report (Exhibit #1), which is backed up by an additional statement from the investigator (Exhibit #5) confirming where the firearm was founded which a direct mention that there was submitted evidence showing the serial number of the firearm (Exhibit #3). This is only supported by a statement from the defendant herself in the original incident information stating "the deputies then unlocked my Paragon and illegally searched it, finding a firearm in the storage compartment."
    In the underlying case, there are three separate evidence exhibits in combination with the Appellants own narrative to prove that the firearm that was found in the vehicle of the Appellant was indeed in her possession and in fact illegal. It is this combination of exhibits and facts in the underlying case that proves, far beyond reasonable doubt, that the charge WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons was justified.

    2. VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment

    The Prosecution notes that, as shown in Evidence Exhibit #2 as presented previously to the court, the Appellant caused direct danger to the general public. As the footage clearly shows, the Appellant was operating the motor vehicle at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speeds over 220 kilometres per hour through various crowded places in the city of Los Santos.

    Dissecting the presented footage chronologically, we would like to state the following events:
    • 00:03 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 210 km/h
    • 00:10 - The Appellant cuts off the lane of travel and onto the sidewalk in one of the, if not the most, crowded and populated area of Los Santos at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 130 km/h potentially causing bodily harm to multiple civilians
    • 00:12 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 140 km/h
    • 00:20 - The Appellant speeds up at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated minimum of 230 km/h in a crowded and busy city area
    • 00:28 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 230 km/h
    • 00:41 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 120 km/h
    • 00:50 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 140 km/h
    • 00:58 - The Appellant crosses into the incorrect lane of travel at a by the helicopter footage as provided in evidence exhibit #2 estimated speed of a minimum of 120 km/h, driving at high enough speeds to not be able to avoid a police cruiser with activated lights and sirens.
    In the case of #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno, the Superior Court of the State of San Andreas has ruled that for the charge VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment to be applicable the Appellant must place the public in acute danger. The fact that the Appellant crashed into a police cruiser instead of a civilian does not take anything away from the fact that the Appellant willingly accepted the risk of causing acute danger to the general public by driving in the way as shown in the evidence. We believe that the aforementioned actions have clearly placed the general public in acute danger through the unsafe use of a motor vehicle and as such, should result in the applicability of the charge VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment. In the underlying Superior Court case, Honorable Daniels judged that the actions as performed by the Appellant, in one of the, if not most, populated areas in one of the, if not most, populated cities in the United States of America put the public in acute danger. In this respect, the Prosecution further notes the clear disregard of danger to life of innocent civilians.

    The Defense claims that the Court of Appeals should take a purposive approach to the charge VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment and the Prosecution agrees. The purpose of this charge is to protect innocent lives from those who willingly risk these. The Prosecution has provided evidence clear as day to confirm the actions of the Appellant put those innocent lives at risk. It is now up to the Court of Appeals to set precedence and protect these lives going forward.

    Conclusion
    To summarize the aforementioned, the Prosecution can only conclude that the charges as above should remain as they are.

    Finally, the Prosecution would like to formally note and raise attention to the evident inequality in the process of appeal as the Prosecution would have initiated an appeal on the verdict of the charges WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee and GM08 - Vandalism of Government Property if at all possible.

Respectfully,


Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    I thank you for your submissions and patience. At this point in time, I will invite the parties to a hearing to provide the court with oral arguments for their case. Please mark your availability using this scheduling tool.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [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-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich 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-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Appeal Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    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
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-AP-0005, Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Harley Pavlovich v. State of San Andreas
#22-AP-0005

A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of December, 2022.


The appellant, in this case, is seeking an overturning of the verdict of two charges included in Superior Court Case #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich, in which the defendant was found guilty of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons and VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, among others. The stated grounds for this appeal is said to be errors in the trial judge's interpretation of the law, specifically mentioning the lack of physical evidence of a firearm for the possession charge and the moderately reckless operation of the vehicle, which the appellant views as not rising to the level of the felony charge.

First addressing the possession charge, the appellant argues that a verdict of guilty without the physical evidence of the firearm itself should be overturned by this court, however, the respondent, on the other hand, asserts that there is sufficient evidence of this crime, including the statement provided in the arrest report, the accompanying serial number information, and the defendant's own statement of law enforcement officers "finding a firearm in the storage compartment" of her vehicle.

While, of course, further supplemental evidence to support the possession charge would certainly be admissible and relevant, given the defense's arguments in the trial court, this court does not view the trial court's verdict as an error in the interpretation of the law. The doubt cast by the defense in the trial court was an appropriate argument to make, given the limited evidence available, however, this court has found there to be reasonably sufficient evidence to support a conviction on this charge.

To address the Felony Public Endangerment charge, the appellant argues that clear differentiation between similar escalating charges (VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, and VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment) be acknowledged to overturn the verdict issued by the Superior Court. The appellant further argues that the only conduct cited by the trial court's judge, which rose to the level of the felony charge, was a brief moment in which the defendant was driving on the public sidewalk before returning to the road, then asserting that the initial charge of simply Reckless Operation was more appropriate as opposed to escalating the charge to Felony Public Endangerment.

The respondent answers these claims with timestamped references to the footage captured by the air unit with allegations of the defendant continuously and excessively exceeding the speed limit throughout the duration of the footage, claiming that the charge was appropriately placed given the alleged speeds, the average population in the area, and the manner of driving.

In order to overturn the verdict of this charge, the appellant must show that there were errors in the judge's interpretation of the law. With the law in question being Felony Public Endangerment, the language we are looking at is "Placing the public in acute danger and or putting a major risk to public safety through unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, firearm, etc." It is clear that the appellant was operating a motor vehicle so the only aspect left to interpretation if the operation of this motor vehicle either placed the public in acute danger and/or the operation of the vehicle posed a major risk to public safety.

It is this court's decision that there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction under this law, given the footage captured by the air unit of the defendant allegedly both at a rate of speed higher than the posted speed limit and in locations that may pose an acute and/or major risk to the public, most notably (albeit briefly) on the sidewalk and in the lanes of opposing traffic. Whether or not the Reckless Operation charge was the more appropriate charge was a valid argument for the trial court, however, this court views the verdict given and thus the interpretation of the law by the Superior Court to not be in error.

It is with the above considerations that I affirm the verdict given by the Superior Court in whole and close this case.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Appeal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests