IN THE RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
v.
IIKOALAXXS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. RSC-CM-8602
JUDGE: Chief Judge Arthur_Chen
STATE’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AND REQUEST A
RECIPROCAL SENTENCING HEARING
The State of Ridgeway, by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this
Court to vacate the sentence issued to the Defendant on June 20, 2026 and request for the
scheduling of a reciprocal sentencing hearing.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The State of Ridgeway (“The State”) filed criminal information on April 15, 2026 along
with an Affidavit of Probable Cause. An amended criminal information was filed on May 5,
2026.
2. A day before the latter date mentioned in the preceding paragraph, defense attorney tylrzo
(“Defendant’s counsel”) filed his Notice of Appearance.
3. The amended information charged the Defendant with one count of False Impersonation,
one count of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, and one count of Aggravated Battery class II.
4. On 11:24 PM Eastern Standard Time and on 6:37 PM Eastern Standard Time respectively
on May 4, 2026 and a renewed waiver on May 6, 2026, the Defendant’s counsel filed for a
waiver of arraignment, which was accepted by the Court on May 15, 2026.
5. The State filed its Discovery and Compliance on May 18, 2026.
1
6. The undersigned counsel for the State filed its Appearance on May 24, 2026.
7. On June 10, 2026, Chief Judge Arthur_Chen called the Court to order and commenced
the trial. The State gave its opening statement that same day at 11:58 AM Eastern Standard Time.
8. The Defendant’s counsel gave opening statements six (6) minutes after the State’s
opening statements.
9. The Court opened witness examination, where Trooper oddhawaiifiveo of the Ridgeway
State Police testified as to his violent encounter with the Defendant.
10. After direct examination concluded, the Defendant’s counsel only asked the Trooper if he
saw the Defendant wearing a Parks Service uniform, where the Trooper said yes.
11. The State waived redirect. The State then called Parks Superintendent ItzCrazyAaron,
who testified that the Defendant wore a legitimate Parks Service uniform on that encounter and
that the Defendant was not at any point in time employed in the Parks Service.
12. The Defendant’s counsel did not cross-examine the Superintendent.
13. On June 16, 2026, the Court opened the period for closing statements. Both the State and
the Defendant’s Counsel provided closing statements.
14. An in-game disposition hearing was held on June 20, 2026 at the Main Palmer
Courthouse, where the Defendant was adjudicated guilty on counts 1 and 3, and Not Guilty on
count 2.
15. The Court, without providing the State a reasonable accommodation after technical issues
were present, preventing the State from voicing its opinion, sentenced the Defendant to
probation, community service and a term of imprisonment of ninety (90) minutes, with a
suspension of seventy (70) of those minutes, leaving a remainder of twenty (20) minutes to be
served.
2
16. The undersigned counsel for the State attempted to voice its dissent of the sentence by
asking the trial judge if it may speak using the Stage’s chat feature, which was ignored.
ARGUMENTS
THE STATE WAS DENIED RECIPROCAL OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS
17. Rid. R. Crim. P. 29(a)(1) provides that the trial judge may, upon the judge’s own motion,
or on written motion of the prosecution, filed within seven (7) days after imposition of the
sentence, may revise or revoke such sentence if it is determined that any part of the sentence was
illegal.
18. The Right to rebut is a cornerstone and bedrock principle of an adversarial system. After
all, the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Grannis v.
Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (1900);
and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) (where the Court in Manzo quoted Ordean by
stating that “a fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard. It is an
opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”)
19. While these cases are not criminal by nature nor are they factually similar, the principle is
the same: due process is not a negotiable right that is specifically tailored to one party, it is a
right that is equally applicable to both sides.
20. While it is not an explicit statutory or rule-based requirement for the State to speak
during sentencing to offer anything in objection to the sentence, it is nonetheless the right of the
prosecutor to act as a spokesperson for the Government. The prosecutor’s office is an entity and
as such it is the spokesman for the Government. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154
(1972)
3
CONCLUSION AND CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests the Court to grant the motion in
full, vacating the sentence due to the failure of the Court to allow the State to be a spokesman for
the Government.
Further, the State requests a new sentencing hearing to properly address aggravating
circumstances along with other relevant revisions to the sentence, in line with Rid. R. Crim. P.
29(a)(1).
Further, the State certifies that all parties have been served this Motion by means of
electronic filing on the RumFiling public-facing filing entries.
DATED: June 20, 2026 Respectfully Submitted
/s/ iiCryptic_LawMD
iiCryptic_LawMD
First State Attorney
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Criminal Division
SBN: 10233
4
