IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
v.
DERHTRAM, AZLAEWENT_OFIICIAL,
Defendants
___________________________/
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CASE: RSC-CM-3140
JUDGE: HON. BOMMES
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER came before the Court on behalf of defense counsel andysofun’s Motion
to Dismiss. The State of Ridgeway, represented by prosecutor Commander1567, filed a Criminal
Information against Defendant and served Defendant. Defense counsel entered a Motion to
Dismiss the charges against Azlaewent_Ofiicial on July 27, 2024. The Court permitted The State
of Ridgeway to enter a reply to the Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Defense attorney Andysofun argued that the State, having formally filed the criminal case
card on the 29th of June 2024, has failed to file their charges in time, thus conflicting with the
statute of limitations act. The alleged misdemeanor charge, Evidence Theft, occurred on May 4th
2024. This is supported by the prosecution’s Criminal Information document. The court sees no
reason to doubt this date, and will assume this as fact.
The prosecution argues that The Court’s closing from the 29th of June until the 5th of
July 2024 directly impacted the filing and processing timeline. They request the deadline be
extended to July 5th. The court takes notice of this fact, as it can be inferred from the public
announcement channel that the court was indeed closed between these dates, and any deadlines
during that time were pushed towards July 5th. The court sees no reason to change or doubt this,
and thus it will concur with the Chief Judge’s announcement and prosecution’s request.
II. DISCUSSION
In order to understand whether a statute of limitations violation has indeed occurred, we
will first look at the law as initially passed by the First Senate. In this law, specifically subsection
3.2(a), it is apparent that the law is ambiguous, perhaps even confusing, it reads:
“No misdemeanor charges shall be filed, refiled, or investigated by the State if the act
which offended the State occurred ninety (60) days prior to the filing of a Criminal
Information or other forms of initiating a criminal proceeding (...)”.
There has been debate whether ninety (90) or sixty (60) is the correct limit to impose on
misdemeanors. This court then looked at the Statute as placed on the Department of State Roster.
This, at first, seems to clear up any shred of uncertainty, as this clearly states ninety days.
However, a note further reads: “This section shall not be construed or interpreted as to terminate
trial or ongoing criminal prosecution after sixty (60) days”. Clearly, another contradiction. The
court declines to issue judgment on which limitation is correct as it is not necessary based on the
analysis and discussion below.
The question before the court now is whether the State failed to submit their case within
either statute of limitations? Defense Counsel argues that 61 days have passed between May 4th
and July 4th. However, the filing date is now seen to be far earlier than July 4th. Namely the 29th
of June. This is the date where the card was added to the Court’s Trello board, commonly
accepted as being ‘filed.’ This means that not 61, but 56 days have passed since the case was
filed with the Superior Court. Accordingly, the court deems the charges, while filed very close to
the shorter deadline, do NOT violate either statutes of limitation.
III. CONCLUSION
Having considered and interpreted all of the above facts and laws, the defendant’s motion
to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Palmer, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 30th day of July, 2024.
/s/ bommes
Hon. bommes
Magistrate Judge
APPROVED:
Hon. notsfeelings
Superior Court Judge
Copies to: Prosecution / Defendant
AndySoFun, Counsel for Defendant Azlaewent_Ofiicial
