IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIDESAEGIS,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CM-3314
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant TidesAegis, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
response to the State’s motion for reconsideration.
INTRODUCTION
On July 31st, 2024, the defendant, TidesAegis, filed a motion to strike the affidavit of
probable cause and dismiss the criminal case against him. This motion was granted as to the
striking of the affidavit of probable cause, but denied as to the motion to dismiss.
After the ruling of this motion, the defendant, TidesAegis, moved to dismiss the criminal
case against him because discovery materials were not provided. This Court granted the motion
to dismiss, dismissing the criminal case against the defendant with prejudice.
The State now files for reconsideration on that motion, arguing that they did provide
discovery material, and that there was no prejudice done to the defendant. This Court ought to
stay with its ruling and deny the State’s motion for reconsideration.
ARGUMENT
I. THE STATE’S INTERPRETATION OF BATALIONGAVIN IS INCORRECT
State v. BattalionGavin 1 Rid. __ (2022) was a landmark case, affirming the rights of
criminal defendants, and yet the State comes forth and wants to–against the binding ruling of the
Supreme Court of the State of Ridgeway–undermine these rights. The State argues that
BattalionGavin is inapplicable in this situation because the defense has had access to discovery
materials. This interpretation is wrong–egregiously so. The main issue in BattalionGavin was
not that the defense was not provided discovery materials, but whether dismissal with prejudice
is warranted based on that fact. The Court ruled yes, "[t]he state trial court holds the power to
dismiss with prejudice as a sanction intended to prevent undue and unnecessary delays within
the judicial process." Id. Indeed, this power is not limited to just a failure to submit discovery,
but to any undue or unnecessary delay. This Court ought to follow stare decisis and deny the
State’s interpretation.
II. THE STATE DID NOT PROVIDE DISCOVERY MATERIAL
In this matter, the State has not provided discovery materials to the defense. Instead of
sending discovery material through the case channel and in the way that every single other
criminal case has been conducted, the State says that defense counsel was in possession of
discovery materials, referring to an invalid and stricken1 affidavit of probable cause; this is
inappropriate. Indeed, “discovery ought to be submitted to the court, in such a way that it can
also be accessed by the other party[.]” State of Ridgeway v. rbwf RSC-CM-3326 (2024). “[A]n
attempt to provide evidence [and discovery] such as videos and other things through providing
the investigation report will not fly[.]” Id. Even if this Court would accept the State’s filing of
discovery as referring to an invalid and stricken affidavit of probable cause, no certification of
compliance was ever filed by the deadline, making it–yet again–an “undue or unnecessary
delay” which warrants dismissal with prejudice. BattalionGavin, supra.
A. Prejudice Occurs When There Is No Submission
Filing a criminal case against a person is no matter to be treated lightly; serious
accusations are being levied. When this happens, the State ought to be held at a high standard
because after all, “[a] plaintiff is required to conduct their due diligence in pursuing an action
before the court, and because of this pursuit, there may be a prejudice against the defendant. An
unnecessary delay of the proceedings can elongate the period during which the defendant is
1 See order granting in part and denying in part defense’s motion to strike and dismiss
prejudiced. The delay of proceedings itself presents an actual prejudice in a defendant…” Id. It
is the right of a defendant to have a speedy trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. This Court’s
decision to “dismiss the proceedings with prejudice is supported by the injury presented because
of the failure of the state to prosecute the action in a timely manner.” Id. Considering all of this
in mind, this “court did not err in granting the dismissal motion…” Id. The State citing United
States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981) stabs them right in the back.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
Date: 08/02/2024
_________________________________
JamesGardai, Esq.
Senior Associate
CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES
Ridgeway Bar No. 24101
652 Palmer Blvd, Palmer Plaza Suite 6020
Palmer, Ridgeway
fishfromocean
Counsel of Record
