Magistrate HC Blake Moore entering.
Sua Sponte Judgment on the Case.
As the judge who previously dismissed this from an administrative approach, I'll enter this time to make a ruling on the merits since that seems necessary. In the underlying appeal, filed by the Defendant and their attorney, no argumentation was provided to the court absent the request to do so. Rather, there is an attempt to couch an argument that the State asked how that argument should be presented and then presented nothing. First, a bar licensed, ex-BCSO deputy refiled this case well outside of the Statute of Limitations and for that reason alone this should be dismissed. Instead of doing so and to make it clearly evident I have reviewed the Investigation and Arrest Report included in the Appeal and this filing and find that the Defendant is
NOT GUILTY of Mayhem.
The investigation and arrest report are near identical, so I'll be discussing both at the same time. There are four distinct events that constitute the case by the State.
The first incident "Breaking into the Safehouse" involves a set of casings found in a safehouse and a subsequent arrest of Leo Salvatore. No where in this incident does it state that Pat Williams is involved.
The second incident "Breaking into Roy Lowenstien propery (sic)" involves a check in on the property where Deputy Evans somehow found evidence on a door camera showing Pat Williams vandalizing the camera. While this incident does indicate that Pat Williams is involved, it does not show anything other than him being present and vandalizing the door camera, there is no other link here that Pat Williams was involved in anything else. In addition to this incident there is "Breaking into roy lowenstein and fleeing in Pat Williams car", but here there is no PID on Pat Williams being involved in whatever this incident was. Notably, the first and second incident were both on March 19th, not separate days.
The third incident "Pat Williams breaking into Roy Lowenstein property" provides a conclusion that the victim identified Pat Williams breaking into the property and that casings were removed. However, when reviewing the victim statement itself, she states that "I saw someone wearing the same outfit as Pat leaving the house." Again, there is no PID here.
The fourth, final, and only good incident involved here "Pat Williams and Leo distract Evan and attack Constance - Leading to an OIS - attempted murder of an LEO" involves an actionable arrest of Pat Williams that would lend itself to a Mayhem charge.
In all of this, there is no clear evidence that Mr. Williams was involved in incidents over the course of 3+ days, immediately defeating the State's case against this Defendant.
Do better.
