#23-AP-0011, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

[Roderick Marchisio]

Appellant Name: State of San Andreas
Appellant Attorney(s): Roderick Marchisio, Gregory Kumerow

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0036
Presiding Trial Judge: Robert Winejudge
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [ X ] After Verdict

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)

• In their verdict, the presiding judge ruled the following conclusion:

  the prosecution has failed to estabilish the defendant's intention to actually interfere with an investigation.

  The prosecution believes that with the evidence as presented to the court, not only the intent of the action has been proven, but the very highest level of intent possible. This is a gross misinterpretation and/or misconstruction of very clearly defined legal doctrine. Therefore, the prosecution notes that we are appealing on grounds of legal error and appellate review of legal issues rather than the procedure as a whole or fact-based evidence. As such, the double jeopardy is not applicable and this appeal should be found admissible.
  
  The prosecution would like to receive the opportunity to further elaborate their position in a written brief when not constrained by the 150 word limit.

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Frank Haswell v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0011

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 19th of July, 2023.

The case of the Frank Haswell v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0011.

Both parties in this case are now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor.

Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If after seven days one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Personal E-Mail "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To all concerned,
  
  The court after further consideration will be taking judicial action of suspending the previously ordered deadlines until representation from both the State and the Defense have been announced on the docket. This is due to changes in both the Prosecution and Defense divisions that must be addressed before the Court of Appeals can impose deadlines on counsel.
  
  The court sincerely appreciates everyone's time and patience as this important matter is resolved.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Court of Appeals of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 19 of July, 2023.

I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Frank Haswell in the underlying appeal case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st of July, 2023.

I, Tony McFornell, a Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-AP-0011 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Given both the prosecution and defense have adequate representation, both sides are hereby ordered to provide a brief outlining their positions and legal arguments within the next seven (7) days.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-AP-0011 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors,
  
  The Court has not received any responses from either the prosecution or the defense on this appeal in the time table allotted. However, the Court of Appeals will take judicial notice that Deputy Attorney General McFornell is on an approved leave of absence until 16/Aug/23.
  
  As a result, this case will be continued until that date. Given the initial deadline expired, both sides will be given 72 hours from that date to submit briefs outlining their position from that date. These responses are due no later than end of day 19/Aug/2023.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION TO DISMISS

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-AP-0011

A Motion for Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 19 of August, 2023.

The Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Breach of Procedure per the San Andreas Court of Appeals - Notice of Appeal Filing Information + Violation of the Defendant's 5th Amendment rights
  • Detailed Explanation: The Defense is filling this motion to dismiss as the prosecution has breached the court of appeals' procedures as per the San Andreas Court of Appeals - Notice of Appeal Filing Information.
    

    Please note, the only persons able to file an appeal after an issuance of verdict is the defendant or their attorney(s) due to the Double Jeopardy rule.

    
    More importantly, further continuation of this appeal would constitute a breach of the Defendant's 5th Amendment Rights.
    

    Each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state, and should it be violated, with probable cause and proof of evidence, a member of any San Andreas Law Enforcement Agency may submit an individual for punishment to the Department of Corrections. Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed.
    In cases of indictment by the Office of the Attorney General, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment of indictment is approved by a qualified judge as the Chief Justice may see fit.
    
    No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.
    
    No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
    
    Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    
    This was affirmed in the Appeal case #23-AP-0009, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine. Where the presiding judge stated:

    To finally address the issue of double jeopardy as raised by the respondent in this case, the court must respect the binding authority of the Constitution and will be ruling in accordance with the language set forth within the 5th Amendment that no person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb. To be clear, there are few circumstances in which the court would grant an appeal submitted by the prosecution after a finding of a not guilty verdict.

    ---

    We urge this court to accept this motion and this appeal given the above considerations. The precedent set by accepting and reviewing this appeal would be a breach of the Constitution of San Andreas, the Defendant's Rights, and the Court of Appeals' own procedures/precedence.

Respectfully,


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• As it was stated in the initial filing, and as it has been accepted by this court previously, the intent behind this appeal is to question the application of the law -in other words, legal error- by the presiding judge, and not challenge procedural matters or breach the double jeopardy rule.
  
  The arguments presented with the appeal, and those contained in this document, will show that the prosecution has no intent in trying the defendant again, disputing the facts or incorporating new arguments or evidence. In other words, what we will try to show is that the presiding judge incorrectly applied the law.
  
  The prosecution argues that the standard for determining wether the defendant was guilty or not of tampering with evidence was wrongly studied. It is our belief that in the underlying case the prosecution's burder was proving negligence or recklessness that led to the tampering of an ongoing evidence. As such, the facts presented -and accepted by the presiding judge even in their judgment text- are proof of this.
  
  The prosecution argues that the culpa standard should've been used when deciding, given that what was being assessed was the behavior of the defendant, with little relevance in relation to whether dolus was present or not. In other words, dolus or direct intent is not a central element of the case, but rather, whether the investigation was tampered with or not. With that being said, the facts -again- show accurately that an investigation was tampered. The defendant's actions were grossly negligent, reckless and they should have been found guilty under the culpa standard.
  
  However, if this is not enough, we believe that the prosecution accurately proved there actually being an intent. Whatever might have happened afterwards with the evidence that was striken from the record is of course, not of relevance given the judge's decision, however, it is clear that the briefcase was substracted with intent if we look at the legal standards that rule our legal system.
  
  Once again, in this case intent wouldn't have been necessary, but rather just culpa (guilt, recklessness, etc.), however, we believe that even then, intent was proved.
  
  As for the arguments presented by the defense, we believe that when it comes to legal errors, there is no chance for legal jeopardy. The prosecution IS NOT arguing facts, events, etc. All of that was done during the trial. The prosecution questions the application of the law, which is wrongful in our opinion. That is why -as seen in other cases-, matters about law do not breach the double jeopardy protection.
  
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Deputy Attorney General
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-AP-0011

A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of September, 2023.

The case of #23-AP-0011 comes before the San Andreas Court of Appeals upon an appeal made by the prosecution from the Superior Court of San Andreas, docket # 23-CM-0036.

In this appeal, the prosecution argues the Presiding Judge in 23-CM-0036 erred in ruling the prosecution had failed to prove intent to interfere with an investigation. The defense argues very simply that this appeal should be denied as the prosecutorial appeal violates double jeopardy as defined by the Fifth Amendment of the San Andreas Constitution. The prosecution rebuts that there is no intent to retry the defendant, and merely requests this Court to review the application of the law, and not retry this matter.

For the purposes of this appeal, this Court agrees with the defense, and therefore will not be remanding this case back to the Superior Court, as this would clearly violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

However, when the Court of Appeals is faced with a question of law, the Court of Appeals can independently review the trial procedure and has unlimited review on whether the law was appropriately applied, and the appropriate procedures applied. Therefore, this Court was tasked with only reviewing the trial court procedure and ultimate application of law.

Trial Court Review

This Court has reviewed the case of #23-CM-0036, including a prior Court of Appeals case originating from the case, #23-AP-0008. The defendant was originally charged with WM02 - Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm, however, the prosecution was granted a motion to amend charges to add GF16 - Tampering with Evidence, & WF04 - Unlicensed transfer of firearms, ammunition and body armor. During pre-trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress mention of a briefcase the Defendant allegedly transferred to a third party. The defense prevailed specific to the contents of the briefcase, but the prosecution was allowed to discuss the transfer of the briefcase itself. The Presiding Judge's ruling on the motion to suppress was challenged in #23-AP-0008, and the decision was affirmed. This Court will therefore honor judicial precedence and not re-litigate this decision in this ruling - therefore, the motion to suppress remains affirmed as decided in #23-AP-0008.

In reviewing the verdict issued, the Presiding Judge ruled the defendant was not guilty on GF16 - Tampering with Evidence and WM02 - Possession of an unlicensed firearm. In review of the discovery presented, the evidence of a presumed unlicensed firearm was suppressed, and no further evidence was presented by the prosecution of an unlicensed firearm being located on the defendant's person. Therefore, I find no error by the Presiding Judge on finding the defendant not guilty of WM02 - Possession of an unlicensed firearm.

On to the Presiding Judge's verdict for GF16 - Tampering with evidence, which is at the crux of this request for appellate review, this Court again employed an unlimited review of the trial court's procedure. From the facts of the case, law enforcement presented statements about the reason for contacting and detaining the defendant due to the defendant's wearing of a mask in public. This issue was also reviewed at the appellate level in #23-AP-0008, therefore, the decision of the appellate judge remains affirmed.

To detain an individual, law enforcement must have articulable reasonable suspicion to do so. To find the defendant guilty of GF16, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant conducted, "An act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority."

As stated, the prosecution argues the intent of the defendant to interfere with an investigation was clear, and the Presiding Judge erred in ruling otherwise. To quote the prosecution;

but rather, whether the investigation was tampered with or not. With that being said, the facts -again- show accurately that an investigation was tampered.

The main focus of this appellate review is therefore 'the investigation' the defendant allegedly interfered with. There is no evidence in the trial court discovery, nor were any arguments made in this appeal that the defendant was the subject of investigation for anything other than the alleged face concealment. Although there are references to a situation at LSC, there is nothing in the discovery, statements, or arguments suggesting the defendant was a person of interest in that investigation. Therefore, this Court is left with the conclusion the investigation was strictly regarding the defendant's face concealment and therefore the prosecution must prove the defendant's actions interfered with that investigation. The suspicion of a crime (i.e. the defendant concealing their face) (should have) ended when the defendant explained the reasonableness of the use of their face covering; there was no further articulable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in a criminal activity. Regardless, in order to prove intent to interfere with an investigation, there must be argument as to how the act interfered with the investigation. In this instance, the investigation of a face concealment was in no way negatively impacted by the defendant's choice to transfer a briefcase to a third party.

Therefore, it is the decision of this court to affirm the verdict from the Superior Court, as no error has been identified on the part of the Presiding Judge.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]