Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

5,950 characters extracted

—

This is a document filed in a mock court in the State of Ridgeway on Roblox.com, and does not constitute real-life legal advice in any way, shape, or form. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY, v. TALAN10101, Defendant. No. RSC-CM-2124 HEARING REQUESTED MOTION TO REVISE SENTENCE Defendant Talan10101, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby, pursuant to Ridgeway Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, moves to revise the sentence imposed by this Court on February 6, 2024. Defendant requests that a hearing be held. A declaration in support is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted. Dated: February 12, 2024 Palmer, Ridgeway Arthur_Chen Ridgeway Bar No. 20104 Counsel of Record Palmer, Ridgeway Discord: arthur_chen [email protected] DORKJACOB LAW, PLLC /s/ DorkJacob ————————————————————————————————————————————— DorkJacob Ridgeway Bar No. 17135 Counsel of Record 1B Palm View Palmer, Ridgeway Discord: izzardizzard [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY, v. TALAN10101, Defendant. No. RSC-CM-2124 DECLARATION OF DORKJACOB IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY I, DorkJacob, declare as follows– 1. I am of sound mind and capable of making this statement. I have personal knowledge of the facts written in this statement. I understand that if I lie in this statement, I may be held criminally responsible. This statement is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. I am DorkJacob, and I am an attorney for Defendant Talan10101 in the above-styled criminal prosecution. Introduction 3. On or about February 7, 2024, the Superior Court (koala4Iife, J.), after a quick trial in which the Government’s case was presented and the Defense’s case was waived, the Court sentenced Defendant Talan10101 (Talan) to ten (10) minutes in prison, a fine of $1,000, disqualification from any office of trust or profit under this State for four (4) months, and expungement of the conviction in six (6) months after being found guilty of Criminal Fraud Class II, in violation of Section 6.07(b), Penal Code. 4. The particular description of the offense stated by the Grand Jury in the Indictment was “on or about the date August 3rd, 2023, the Defendant knowingly misrepresented material fact[s] with the sole knowledge that the fact was being misrepresented, in order to fool the Lieutenant Governor in relation to his impeachment. The defendant published falsified senate voting records to the State Senate Trello board in order to continue an impeachment which had failed within the Senate, against the peace and dignity of the State.” 5. For the reasons herein, the sentence imposing a four-month ban from seeking public office and a six-month effective ban from expunging this conviction does not do justice in this case and rather does an injustice to the community at large. - 1 - Legal Standard 6. “The trial judge upon [] the written motion of a defendant, filed within seven (7) days after the imposition of a sentence [], may, upon such terms and conditions as the judge shall order, revise or revoke such sentence if it appears that justice may not have been done.” Rid. R. Crim. P. 29(a)(2).1 7. “The rule's purpose is to permit a judge to reconsider the sentence he has imposed and determine, in light of the facts as they existed at the time of sentencing, whether the sentence was just. The affidavit, in turn, is intended to identify such facts that would warrant the allowance of the motion. In considering whether to allow a motion to revise or revoke, [] a judge may not take into account conduct of the defendant that occurs subsequent to the original sentencing.” Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 795 N.E.2d 547, 552 (Mass. 2003) (citations omitted) (emphasis as in original). Argument 8. As the Court stated in its judgment, “[the Court] fully accept[s] that this is a political offence – one of fraud and misconduct in office at that. Mr. Talan defrauded not only a person or an official – he defrauded the State of Ridgeway and its institution meant to be representative of its constituents. Therefore, the sentence will seek to deter conduct similar to that of Mr. Talan.” However, this sentence does not defer future conduct of this type in a way that does justice to the peace and dignity of this State. Surely it cannot be in the interest of so many people across our State for their favorite politician to be unable to seek public office for half a year. More than a lot in our community can change in half a year and Mr. Talan’s conduct cannot be proportional to the sentence that has been imposed. 9. Mr. Talan’s conduct – attempting to albeit fraudulently argue that the results of a Senate impeachment vote with the Lieutenant Governor – cannot warrant a deterrent sentence of a six-month effective ban from our community. He will no longer be able to be a law enforcement officer, hold any public office, and will not be able to participate in our community like others can. While punishment for this type of political offense is certainly in order, can an effective six-month sentence really serve the ends of justice? Our State deserves better than a six-month governmentally-imposed ban for Mr. Talan. 1 Rule 29 is very similar to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. - 2 - 10. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Talan should have his day in court to contest his six-month governmentally-imposed ban from our community, and to seek alternative sentencing to see to it that Mr. Talan is rehabilitated and can fully participate in our community after he serves his punishment. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 12, 2024 DORKJACOB LAW, PLLC /s/ DorkJacob ————————————————————————————————————————————— DorkJacob Ridgeway Bar No. 17135 1B Palm View Palmer, Ridgeway Discord: izzardizzard [email protected] - 3 -

Motion_to_Revise_Sentence.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record