Page 1 of 1
#23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:02 pm
by Roderick Marchisio
Re: #23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 7:17 am
by Judith Mason
Re: #23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:23 pm
by Roderick Marchisio
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Written Brief Re: #23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Honorable Mason,
In the case of #22-CM-0070, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa the decision by Honorable Daniels was made to dismiss the case without prejudice. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that the underlying case had been formally activated and had motions and decisions posted up until the moment the request - and not even the correct Motion - for dismissal was filed by the Defense. One of these Motions in play during this case was a Motion to Amend Charges, that added the charges WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee and GF24 - Perjury to the charges the Defendant was facing.
The Prosecution notes that from a due process perspective both parties have the justified trust to one another that the case is being seen through and a dismissal only can be done when either both parties agree to a dismissal or one party dismisses in full. In the underlying case, without agreement of any kind from the Prosecution, this request was granted, without taking into account the Motion to Amend Charges.
Further, the Prosecution notes that as the underlying case had not received a substantive treatment yet as well as the fact the case was dismissed without prejudice, this appeal would not violate the double jeopardy rule in any way.
Due to this clear breach of process, the Prosecution appeals the formal dismissal of the Superior Court and requests the Court of Appeals to either refer this case back to the Superior Court for a substantive treatment or verdict on the Motion to Amend Charges in this appeal.
Respectfully,
Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 —
[email protected]
Re: #23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:54 pm
by Dmitri Leroy
Rockford Law
#23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
|
Honorable Mason,
We, the defense, did not file a motion to dismiss as the prosecution states. The courts initiated the dismissal and our client had no objections to their dismissing. Our client has chose to save the courts important due process time by accepting the original charges, and paying the courts standard for compensation of its time. As the Law firm representing our client we have put forward our clients desires to not contest the courts dismissing of this case. We also happen to agree with them; the court has many important cases to get through. The prosecution alleges the court, more specifically Judge Daniels, has breached the judicial procedure, and had errors in their interpretation of the law. We believe he had a great respect for the procedure however we leave that for the courts to decide. We have nothing further to add.
Sincerely,
CEO | Rockford Law
(909) 219-4084 —
[email protected]
Re: #23-AP-0002, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:03 am
by Judith Mason
San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
COURT DECISION
IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS
State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa
#23-AP-0002
A decision was reached in the above case on the 31st day of January, 2023.
In the underlying case of #22-CM-0070, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa, the presiding judge had carried the case from activation, through the discovery phase, and was able to make a decision regarding several previously pending motions, including the Motion for Discovery, clarifying the disputed charges, and the Motion to Amend Charges to introduce several additional felony charges which the defendant had not previously served upon his initial arrest.
The case had gotten to the verge of scheduling trial, with the presiding judge stating, "If no other motions are filed by end of day Sunday, November 27th, 2022, I will be moving to hold a trial in this case." However, the case was further delayed by the presiding judge with another statement indicating to parties that they had until December 16th, 2022 to make contact with the court under the penalty of the case's dismissal.
This implication of dismissal, presumably, had been due to the defendant's counsel failing to respond to the presiding judge on the public docket when asked during this and other cases at the time, however, just before the deadline of December 16th, an alternative attorney at the law firm the defendant had hired indicated on the docket that the defendant was no longer interested in pursuing the case and, rather, wishes to accept the charges for which he had already served time.
Under normal circumstances, the presiding judge's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, leaving the defendant's previous charges intact, would have been sufficient, however, this court has determined that, regardless of the defendant's willingness to accept the initial charges, the presiding judge made a decision against courtroom procedure as the charges added by the Motion to Amend Charges had not yet been adjudicated, which now prevent the case from being properly dismissed.
This court is now reversing the dismissal of the case and is remanding it back to the presiding judge in the Superior Court under docket number #22-CM-0070, resuming with trial scheduling for a dispute of the charges listed below:
- WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons
- WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee
- GF24 - Perjury
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]