State of San Andreas v. Roberto Sanchez

[Roberto Sanchez]

Appellant Name: Roberto Sanchez
Appellant Attorney(s): Hugh Allgood

Trial Docket Number: #25-CM-0006
Presiding Trial Judge: Hope Kant
Notice of Appeal Filed: Yes

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [ ] Motion to be overturned
  [X] 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)

• Firstly, and most importantly, the prosecution failed to comply with a court order which would greatly assist the defence in the case. This is because a lot of the concluding statements were in relation to the detainment. had the bodycam footage been present, it would have been seen that I was never lawfully detained and I was free to go. I made sure to stay around and assist the officers as I had nothing to hide - I was innocent.
  
  The officers did not conduct a traffic stop on me - they conducted a stop on another individual inside the Great Ocean Gas Station and I was there refuelling my bike. I had a casual conversation with the officers, and they wanted to investigate my potential involvement to which I complied with everything. This bodycam footage would have been crucial to my defence as it would show I did not match the individual documented on the docket, that I was not detained and that I happily complied with any requests as I had nothing to hide.
  
  The potential for someone else to have used my vehicle and store clothes inside was also glossed over/ignored. This is reasonable doubt - why was this not proven against.
  
  (( Body build? Really? C'mon now, all male peds have the same body build. ))
  
  The case precedents listed by the prosecution were not relevant whatsoever to my case. I will list the reasons why below:
  
  #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
  The clothing, tattoos and vehicle were all confirmed to be linked to the suspect involved. In my case, the prosecution themselves stated "the tattoos do not match the suspect" and there was no mention of a vehicle being used in the crime. Therefore, the prosecution has nit-picked an element of precedent to force the hands of justice against my defence.
  
  #23-CM-0033, State of San Andreas v. Jamal Wilman
  Again, it was not just the clothing that tied him to the crime. Heavy emphasis was placed on the vehicle they were driving, and visual identification when they removed the mask. Clothing was not the sole reason for linking to the crime. Again, in my case, only the clothing and hairstyle matched - again, the potential for other individuals placing the clothes in my bike was glossed over and ignored.
  
  #23-CM-0094, State of San Andreas v. Linden Thuynsma
  This case was reactivated and charges dropped. The evidence of clothing in the initial ruling was not sufficient to uphold as the appellant had an alibi. This is proof that clothing is not sufficient grounds to prosecute on. And even in this case, there was additional evidence outside of just clothing used against the defence, yet in my case there was none other than the hairstyle.
  
  To summarise, the precedent used by the prosecution lacks foundation and relevance to my case and should not have been valued as set precedent to rule on. Furthermore, the prosecutions failure to comply greatly impacted my ability to have fair defence which the court assumed it would not.
  
  The Attorney General was repeatedly objected against which was upheld, and he repeatedly had his objections overruled. His case lacked any substantial evidence whatsoever other than linking some clothes I was unaware of in a vehicle not evidenced as used in a crime to an individual with a similar haircut as I in a crime I was not on the scene for that occurred many hours (maybe a day) prior. I was not detained, I voluntarily spoke with the peace officers and allowed them to rule me out as a suspect (which they did) until they found some clothing that was in my abandoned bike.
  
  I further reaffirm my innocence and am saddened by this miscarriage of justice.

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Petitioner
  
  Thank you for your submission to the Court of Appeals. As I have a clear conflict of interest on the above case, due to being the deciding judge on the original case, this case will not be activated at the moment. However, we will be looking to assign a Justice to the case in due time. Thank you for your patience.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

SUMMARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Roberto Sanchez

A Summary Dismissal was entered in the above appeal on the 11th day of December, 2025.

• The Court of Appeals has reviewed the specific circumstances of #25-CM-0006, State of San Andreas v. Roberto Sanchez. The Appeal has several factors highlighted, which the Court of Appeals has reviewed and will comment on:
  • The failure of Prosecution to comply with a Court Order, namely the Defense's Motion to Compel Discovery that the Court accepted in the decision filed to the docket on the 29th of January, 2025.
  • The circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent voluntary cooperation of the Defendant, versus the claimed detainment of the Defendant.
  • The relevance of the referenced precedents by both the Prosecution and the presiding judge in their verdict.
  
  The Court of Appeals acknowledges the time difference between the presiding judges' order and the subsequent follow-up from the Prosecution; however, the standard to be reviewed is whether there have been any egregious errors in the trial procedure itself.
  
  The Defense acknowledged the lack of response from the Prosecution through subsequent motions, which the presiding judge handled during trial. The Prosecution stated that the evidence that was compelled was corrupt and unobtainable, while still providing the appropriate discovery for the remainder of the evidence. There were no clear errors from the view of the Court of Appeals. Given the attempts by the prosecution and the totality of the evidence that was provided to the courts, the presiding judge determined that, while more case-relevant information may not hurt the defense, the prosecution had already provided or attempted to provide every bit of information available. The Court of Appeals agrees with the lower court that, in this specific case, sufficient evidence had been provided and attempts had been made to comply with the court's order by the prosecution
  
  Understandably, the Defense has reiterated a portion of their Defense in this appeal to highlight potential other avenues that were not considered at trial. However, the Court of Appeals must only consider new evidence as a factor when reviewing an appeal. The potential consideration of another individual being involved is not new evidence being presented, but rather a reiteration of already existing points, as demonstrated in the verdict from the presiding judge. As this goes to the Appellant attempting to highlight evidence supporting their innocence, the Court of Appeals must reiterate that the Court will only review new evidence introduced to substantiate a new argument for innocence, rather than the reiteration of existing arguments.
  
  The Appellant also makes a note to the voluntary nature of their cooperation, versus the quoted "detainment" from the perspective of the Officers involved. While again, the Court will not review a reiteration of previous evidence in the goal of finding innocence, the Court of Appeals does not believe that a clarification through bodycam evidence of whether the appellant was detained or not would have a meaningful impact on the verdict presented. As the appellant states, the searches were done under voluntary cooperation, so any question regarding potential impropriety on the part of the Officers in relation to the search is moot given the admitted voluntary nature of the cooperation. The mere act of cooperating and allowing a voluntary search has minimal mitigating impact on the evidentiary nature of any exhibits found.
  
  Finally, the Court of Appeals finds that the ruling of the presiding judge did not breach or contradict any previous precedent in a manner that would require further review. The presiding judge provided a detailed and thorough explanation in their verdict to have met the required elements of the charges, in order to find the defendant guilty. As the Court of Appeals sees no egregious error made in the interpretation of the penal code, the constitution, or prior precedence referenced, nor does the Court of Appeals see any egregious errors in the handling of the case either on the docket or in the final verdict, the original verdict will be upheld, and this case will be summarily dismissed.
  
  So ordered,
  
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]