Appeal: Denied Crown v. RaiTheGuy, Case 14 (Mag. Ct. 2025) (pet. ref'd)

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

RaiTheGuy
Defendant​

Appeal
This appeal arises out of the sua sponte dismissal of Crown v. RaiTheGuy, Case 14 (Mag. Ct., 2025). The Crown filed an action on July 8th, 2025, and the Crown and the Defendant came to a plea agreement on the same day. Two days later, on July 10th, 2025, the Court, sua sponte dismissed the criminal action without allowing the Crown to respond.

I. Jurisdiction, Parties, and Venue
1. The Crown may appeal any action by the Magistrate Court in a criminal proceeding pending a verdict. See Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 11. The CCPA applies to this proceeding, as while the crime in this case took place prior to its passage, the proceedings in this case were submitted after its passage. As such, the procedural requirements should fall under the CCPA. The Chancery has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the relevant statute.
2. The Crown is the appellant in this action and is the lawfully recognized title for the Executive branch of the Government of the Kingdom of Alexandria. See Moyfr v. The Crown, Case 4 (Ch. 2025).
3. The Magistrate Court, acting sua sponte and against the wishes of both parties, is the only cognizable possible party for which this appeal may name as the respondent.

II. Facts
1. The Crown charged RaiTheGuy with Corruption under the former Alexandrian Criminal Code on July 8th, 2025
2. The crime took place on May 7th, 2025, at around 2:30 pm PST.
3. The complaint was filed July 8th, at 10:50 am PST.
4. "month" is not defined within the former Alexandrian Criminal Code.
5. There are 31 days in May, and 30 days in June.
6. The Court locked the thread, causing the government to be unable to request any chance to argue, or to submit a writ of reconsideration.

III. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
1. The Magistrate Court may not dismiss an application sua sponte from the government in a criminal matter. The General Court Rules and Procedures allow a magistrate to dismiss claims that do not meet the standing Application requirements, which exclusively apply to "plaintiffs."
2. In a criminal prosecution, the government is not a plaintiff, it is the Crown, thus the section does not apply.
3. No grounds exist to dismiss an action in the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate court sua sponte.

IV. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
1. In the alternative, the Magistrate Court abused its discussion issuing a writ of dismissal sua sponte without allowing the parties to respond to its concerns.
2. Counsel for the Crown already planned to argue regarding how "month" should be interpreted within the Alexandrian Criminal Code ("ACC") and was prepared to brief the court in how it must consider the extra day within a month when determining how many days the Crown has to file a complaint.
3. Here, because there are 31 days in May, the magistrate court needed to count 31 days from the 7th, to determine how many days applied for that month. After that, because June has 30 days, they needed to count an extra 30 days to determine when the final deadline for the filing of the suit would run.
4. If the magistrate court heard this, and had they determined it were correct, the correct final deadline for the criminal complaint would be July 8th, at 2:30 PM.
5. The Chancery Court must look to the "plain meaning" of words not defined within a law, and must apply that plain meaning to the act. If there are two or more reasonable interpretations of a particular word or phrase, they only then look to legislative intent.
6. Here, the plain meaning of the word "month" must be interpreted to mean the month the charge begins in, and the month after. The magistrate court may not look to the exact same numerical day two months later to determine the final date for which a charge may be filed, as to do so would cause charges filed a day later in months with 31 days to have one day less to be filed, and charges taking place in December of the previous year on the 30th to have no final date to be filed in February. While confusing, "month" must mean a specific number of days, and not just the same numerical date two months later.

V. Prayer for Relief
1. The actions of the magistrate court frustrate the judicial process, do not allow for the Crown or even the defendant to submit briefing on the matter, and dismiss the ability of both parties to come to an agreement, and hide objection behind vehicles for which the Crown has no avenue of relief.
2. For those reasons, this Court should reverse the decision of the magistrate court, remand the proceeding back to the magistrate court for further consideration on the merits of their sua sponte finding, and allow for the judicial process to remain unimpeded and fair to both sides.
3. Alternatively, the Court should reverse the decision of the magistrate court, remand the proceedings back to the magistrate court for a decision not inconsistent with its findings that the Crown did not procedurally default through the statute of limitations, and allow the proceeding to proceed to sentencing.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Ibney0]

Your honours,

I noticed the court updated their naming preferences for appeals. The Crown has no issues with renaming the case to the current preference of the court, if it sees fit.

 

[Smallfries]

This filing has been corrected to the appropriate form, venue, and tag.

The Chancery has acknowledged the existence of this petition for appeal and will deliberate on its merits for review.

 

[juniperfig]

The Chancery would appreciate a brief filing from the State on the following matters:

Why they believe there is only one month between the 7th of May and the 8th of July,
Why they believe plain meaning should be read into "month" but not into "plaintiff".

 

[Ibney0]

The Chancery would appreciate a brief filing from the State on the following matters:

Why they believe there is only one month between the 7th of May and the 8th of July,
Why they believe plain meaning should be read into "month" but not into "plaintiff".

Your honour,

This is quite embarrassing, but I believe I made a mistake when I was calculating the dates on the calendar on my computer. When I added up the days between May 1st and July 1st I believe I counted may 1st alongside July 1st for the number of days. When I counted the days for May 7th to July 7th, I did not do this. As a result it appears I added an extra day when doing my calculations. This simple mistake appears to be the reason for this entire mix up, and I sincerely apologize for it. Even if its really embarrassing, I need to admit my mistake in this regard.

As a matter of law, the government still believes that both month and plaintiff should be read by their plain meaning, and that under the plain meaning of plaintiff the Government in a criminal action can no be a plaintiff. We do not believe the issue is moot as the government and the defendant in the lower court could still legally come to a agreement to waive the statute of limitations, however, based on prosecutorial ethics I don't believe that to be in the best interest of anyone, and I believe the plea deal Mr. RaiTheGuy entered into was not with knowledge of this mistake. As such, we ask for voluntary dismissal at this time.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
REFUSAL OF PETITION

​

As the State has asked to dismiss this appeal, we refuse this petition for repeal. The judgment of the lower court stands.