State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

[Hope Kant]

Appellant Name: Attorney General Hope Kant
Appellant Attorney(s):

Trial Docket Number: #24-CM-0021
Presiding Trial Judge: Tony McFornell
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
  [ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• The Judge on the case has ruled in a way that...
  1. Ignores prosecutorial discretion.
     • While our court system may work in a unique way, the Judge cannot simply disregard prosecutorial discretion in placing charges.
  2. Ignores the time that Judges have taken to activate cases.
     • The Judge places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution for not have dismissed the case previously, when cases have remained inactive for a long due to judge inactivity and not prosecution failures.
  3. Ignores prosecution protocols.
     • The prosecution was actively speaking with law enforcement over emails until late March. Shortly after the prosecution/judicial branch experienced staffing changes, LOA's, etc. Again arguably by March the cases that were/have been sitting active for months would have moved through and this case would've been seen by that time, but the prosecution was focusing on the multiple recent criminal court submissions and active cases versus pending cases that were waiting for activation.
  4. Ignores the constitutional rights of the prosecution.
     • "It shall correspond to the Prosecutor’s Office, ex officio or by means of complaint, to investigate the crimes and to accuse the alleged offenders before the competent courts and tribunals, with special emphasis on the crimes committed by members of the public force in active service and civil servants.
       
       The Prosecution’s Office shall have jurisdiction over all of the national territory."
  The prosecution has jurisdiction and power over initiating criminal cases against individuals, with what charges, and at what time. That is solely the decision and power given to the prosecution. The ONLY reason a voluntary motion for dismissal from either side should ever be denied is due to suspected corruption within the department in regards to the handling of that specific case. As the judge on the case has listed none, the prosecution can only conclude the ruling to be made in clear error and violation of our constitution.

[Ren Sanchez]

((Archived due to leave from the server))