Page 1 of 1
#25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 05 Nov 2024, 08:38
by Cyrus Raven
Re: Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 27 Jul 2025, 17:48
by Hope Kant
Re: Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 07 Dec 2025, 02:35
by Joseph Horton
San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF ACTIVATION
IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS
Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
#25-AP-0003
A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 7th day of December, 2025.
- The case of Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #25-AP-0003.
The Court will not be ordering either party to present an initial brief at this time, as the Court will leave this case in recess until both the appellant and opposing party counsel provide notice to this Court that they are ready to proceed. The Court requests that the appellant, or their Counsel, provide notification to this Court within the next thirty (30) days. Once notice is provided, the Court requests that the opposing party provide their notification subsequently.
If the Court does not receive notice within thirty (30) days, the Court will review the case to understand if any extensions may be required to this timeframe.
So ordered,
Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 11 Jan 2026, 18:20
by Joseph Horton
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 09 Mar 2026, 18:03
by Rowin Lawson
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#25-AP-0003
A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal with Prejudice was filed in the above case on the 9th day of March, 2026.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: The prosecution would like to urge the courts to consider a dismissal in regard to this appeal. As can be seen on the docket, the appellant has been unreachable by the court. Justice Horton gave notice of a final (30) day window for the appellant to contact the court. That was (57) days ago, The prosecution again urges the court to dismiss this appeal.
Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 16 Mar 2026, 16:22
by Hugh Allgood
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 17 Mar 2026, 00:07
by Joseph Horton
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 25 Mar 2026, 03:42
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
|
- Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
First off, the Defense would like to thank Justice Horton for allowing me to respond to this appeal in Mr. Raven's absence, and counsel would like to apologize to the Court for the unresponsiveness on Mr. Raven's behalf.
As the appellant articulated in the grounds for appeal, this appeal comes on Judge Bret Hyland finding the appellant guilty of GF09 - Embezzlement, following a bench trial in the Superior Court of San Andreas on November 3rd, 2024.
In the reasonings given for the verdict, Judge Hyland mentioned the reason for the verdict was the funds donated to Mr. Raven were given to him to use in his campaign bid for the Law Review Committee (LRC) and the specific donations were provided by two individuals, Vince Williams and James Eriksen and were to be used for the advancement of Mr. Raven's political career. But instead, the funds were used to purchase multiple properties and vehicles. It's important to mention and note, Mr. Raven was successful in getting elected to the LRC in December 2022 (State's exhibit #1).
Defense counsel wishes to point this Court to review Defense exhibits #1 and #2, filed on May 11th, 2024, as these are written statements obtained directly from Mr. Williams and Mr. Eriksen, the individuals Mr. Raven was convicted of misappropriating funds from. Both individuals confirm the funds received by Mr. Raven were donations that Mr. Raven received during his campaign for political office. Mr. Eriksen states the donation was intended to support Mr. Raven, and was not a payment for any other services or goods. Mr. Williams states the donation was provided in the hopes of Mr. Raven using it for his political career, and states "no conditions were imposed on Mr. Raven for receiving the donation." In State's exhibit #12, Mr. Raven confirms a portion of this money was in-fact used for his political campaign, with approximately $200,000 used for Weazel advertisements and the rest kept in reserves, in the event these funds were needed for other campaign expenses. In Mr. Raven's own words, a Comet S2 was purchased after the LRC campaign. There is no other information provided by Mr. Raven, or within the State's case of when any other purchases were made, either during or after the LRC campaign.
As the appellant articulated and defense counsel affirms, embezzlement only occurs with the misappropriation of someone else's money or property. The money at issue here was received by the appellant as a donation. Therefore, the money was property of Mr. Raven, and therefore the only person who can claim the funds were misappropriated would be Mr. Raven himself.
In further support of this argument, Mr. Williams and Mr. Eriksen both stated there were no conditions imposed on the receipt of money, such as a claim of the money being "loaned" to Mr. Raven, or entrusted to Mr. Raven to be spent in any specific manner, or remaining proceeds to be returned upon the conclusion of Mr. Raven's LRC election. In fact, Mr. Raven stated one of the purchases the State contends is embezzlement of funds occurred after Mr. Raven was elected to the LRC. The State did not provide any evidence of Mr. Williams or Mr. Eriksen demanding any portion of their funds back from Mr. Raven or of claiming Mr. Raven making any unauthorized purchases (both Mr. Williams and Mr. Eriksen did not claim any complaints with how their donations were spent either).
It is also important to note, an important element of the charge of embezzlement that the State must prove in order to find someone guilty is the misappropriation of someone else's money or property. In order to prove this claim, there must be a complaining party. Directly speaking, in order for Mr. Raven to be found guilty of misappropriating the $1,000,000, a) the State must prove the money was property of either Mr. Williams or Mr. Eriksen, and b) that either party claimed their property was misappropriated. The State can prove neither. Neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. Eriksen are complaining parties, and importantly, neither were a witness for the State. In fact, both in their sworn statements have provided information to the contrary.
Counsel notes only recently did the LRC implement any kind of system of registering campaign donations, or setting any limits on such. Even in these regulations, which did not exist at the time of the events in question, there are no regulations on what happens with campaign donations at the conclusion of an election cycle. No such regulation existed then or now, and this is also supportive of what Mr. Raven did back in 2022 to not be unlawful or otherwise prohibited.
For clarification, defense counsel believes Mr. Raven's campaign, and the donation received during the campaign, to merely be a distraction or "mud in the water". A donation is a donation. An easier way to look at this is to think of other situations where a donation is received and how such proceeds are used. To illustrate this point, if Defense counsel tells another citizen about their desire to buy a Kamacho, and that other citizen gives Defense counsel a sum of money to be used towards a Kamacho, is Defense counsel bound to use the money for such purchase? What if defense counsel, after test driving several vehicles, chooses instead to purchase a Terminus? Did Defense counsel just misappropriate the funds initially provided as a donation to buy a Kamacho? In order for this Court to uphold Mr. Raven's conviction for embezzlement, this Court must answer "yes" to this question.
In summary - (1) a donation is a donation. Once a donation is made, the item or proceeds donated become the property of the recipient. In this present case, Mr. Raven received $1,000,000 from two individuals, and this money became Mr. Raven's property. (2) What someone does with their property, is not capable of being misappropriated. (3) The State failed to meet their burden of proof, due to the absence of a party complaining of their property misappropriated. (4) There were and are no regulations on how campaign donations are used, either during or after a campaign. And for these reasons, the appellant believes a clear finding of Judge Hyland misinterpreting the law must be made, and Mr. Raven's conviction should be reversed.
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 05 Apr 2026, 22:37
by Joseph Horton
Re: #25-AP-0003 Cyrus Raven v. State of San Andreas
Posted: 25 Apr 2026, 18:44
by Hugh Allgood
