STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
AHMADKAPLOT,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number: RSC-CM-3043
Presiding: Hon. koala4life
Mag. insertreality
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEFENDANT, AhmadKaplot, by and through the undersigned counsel, submits
this motion in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to Rid. R. Crim. P. 42. Defendant
respectfully moves the court to grant reconsideration on its order to show cause. Attached
hereto and herewith is a memorandum of law in support of Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
July 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
Nicklaus_s
Counsel of Record
Ridgeway Public Defender’s Office
Paralegal
R. Bar. No. 23102
Attorney for Defendant
1
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
AHMADKAPLOT,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number: RSC-CM-3043
Presiding: Hon. koala4life
Mag. insertreality
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................4
STANDARD OF REVIEW............................................................................................... 4
ARGUMENTS....................................................................................................................5
I. The Court Erred In Ordering the Defendant to Show Cause Because the Prosecution
Did Not Properly Petition For Declaration of Fugitive Status....................................... 5
a. The Fugitive Debt Recovery Act.......................................................................... 5
b. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Issuing an Order to Show Cause................. 5
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 6
3
INTRODUCTION
The Court, although lacking a petition under the Fugitive Debt Recovery Act, has
issued an order to show cause. Nonetheless, the Court must rescind its order to show
cause because it has abused its discretion. The order lacks legal grounds under 1 R. Stat.
§ 4204.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 16, 2024, Defendant AhmadKaplot (“Mr. Ahmad”) was charged with four
counts of first-degree murder, unlawful display of a firearm, unlawful discharge of a
firearm, and unlawful possession of government-issued equipment, respectively, for
events that occurred on April 12, 2024. The government later motioned to nolle prosequi
counts two and three due to them being time-barred by the statutes of limitations, leaving
counts one and four of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of government-issued
equipment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Generally, a motion for reconsideration may be granted if the moving party
demonstrates any of the following: (1) manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
judgment was based; (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3)
manifest injustice in the judgment; and (4) an intervening change in the controlling law.
See generally C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure.
4
ARGUMENTS
I. The Court Erred In Ordering the Defendant to Show Cause Because the
Prosecution Did Not Properly Petition For Declaration of Fugitive Status
a. The Fugitive Debt Recovery Act
The passing of the Fugitive Debt Recovery Act, 1 R. Stat. § 4201, et seq., was
monumental; prior to its existence, defendants faced trial in absentia if they failed to
appear for a criminal case against them. In such cases, public defenders were appointed to
represent these absent defendants during criminal proceedings. See, e.g., State of
Ridgeway v. aIwaysproper, RSC-CR-432, Rid. Super. Ct. (2022).
Now, however, “[n]o trial of a criminal defendant shall be held in absentia.” 1 R.
Stat. § 4241. Instead, the government may petition the court to declare fugitive status on
the defendant. See 1 R. Stat. § 4203. Through this petition, the government must show,
inter alia, that a defendant (a) has been charged with a felony, in which the court has
found probable cause; (b) has failed to appear at judicial proceedings; (c) has been given
time to appear for the proceedings; and (d) has been given proper notice of the
proceedings. 1 R. Stat. § 4201.
b. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Issuing an Order to Show Cause
Generally, “the grant of a rule to show cause…is a matter in the discretion of the
court.” Life and Fire Insurance Company v. Adams, 34 U.S. 571, 572 (1835); see also
Thomas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n, 594 F.3d 814, 821 (11th Cir. 2010).
However, in this case, the standard of review turns, because if the petition satisfies the
criteria, the court “shall order the defendant to appear and show cause.” 1 R. Stat. § 4204.
If the statutory criteria is met, the court is required to issue the order, leaving no room for
discretion—this is because, of course, “[u]nlike the word ‘may,’ which implies discretion,
5
the word ‘shall’ usually connotes a requirement.” Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United
States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1977 (2016). However, if the criteria is not met, and the court
issues the order anyway, that action is an abuse of discretion because the court is acting
outside the bounds of the statutory requirements.
Yet, the prosecution has merely submitted a proposed order.1 Nonetheless, the
court accepted and published the order—absent a petition which satisfies 1 R. Stat. §
4203. See Doc. 3, Order to Show Cause. Through this proposed order, the prosecution
attached a message, which merely asks “for the court to issue the following order”
because “Defendant…failed to appear following 72 hours.” This so-called “petition”
barely scratches the surface of the elements necessary to support that of a credible
petition under 1 R. Stat. §§ 4201, 4203. And when the court “bases its ruling on an
erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” it abuses
“its discretion.” State v. Turtle, 1 Rid. 22, 37 (Powell, J., concurring in part); see also
Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall rescind its order to show cause.
July 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
Nicklaus_s
Counsel of Record
1 https://discord.com/channels/955339522936279040/1251937157468262411/1253795527577829477
6
Ridgeway Public Defender’s Office
Paralegal
R. Bar. No. 23102
Attorney for Defendant
7
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
AHMADKAPLOT,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number: RSC-CM-3043
Presiding: Hon. koala4life
Mag. insertreality
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nicklaus_s, do hereby certify that a copy of this document and the contents
thereof has, on July 2, 2024, been served, by electronic means, upon the opposing parties
of the above-entitled matter.
July 2, 2024
Palmer, Ridgeway
Beneath my hand,
Nicklaus_s
Counsel of Record
Ridgeway Public Defender’s Office
Paralegal
R. Bar. No. 23102
Attorney for Defendant
8
