State of San Andreas v. Carlos Dorato

[Bruno Fontana]

Your Honor,

The prosecution's arguments mischaracterize the facts and ignore critical exculpatory details, attempting to bootstrap unrelated claims into a possession charge that fails under scrutiny.

I lack the requisite knowledge and control over the alleged contraband, and prior punishment for a separate theft renders their narrative redundant and prejudicial.

No Prior Knowledge by DeLuca of My Plans
The prosecution claims I was "apprehended alongside Mr. Marcus DeLuca while actively breaking into a property." This is demonstrably false. Marcus DeLuca is my acquaintance from unrelated business talks about a legitimate fighting club, but I never shared my plans with him, and he had no prior knowledge of the incident that night; he independently approached the masked individual (me) forcing entry, followed inside out of shock without invitation or coordination from me, knew the house was not mine, watched me alone open the safe and load weapons, did not break in or plan the robbery himself, but erred by staying and carrying an RPG case in confusion before I urged us to leave, severing any joint venture inference, as mere proximity to an acquaintance's unilateral choices does not equate to shared intent or possession.


Actual Possession Lacking
No evidence ties the five AK-47 cases or marked money directly to my "personal inventory" with proof of knowing possession. The prosecution assumes intent from presence alone, but accidental or unknowing carriage, especially amid DeLuca's unsolicited actions, negates the "knowing and intentional act" required. One does not "accidentally" carry such items only if awareness is proven, which it is not here.

Constructive Possession Rebutted
Shared access to the premises undermines any dominion argument. The "shared-key factor" cuts against the prosecution: as primary occupant, I cannot be presumed to control items placed by unknown third parties without evidence of awareness. No fingerprints, testimony, or other indicia link me to the mansion's contents beyond speculation. Joint occupancy alone fails to prove constructive possession without additional proof of knowledge and intent.

Prior Punishment Bars Re-Litigation
I already served nine months in jail and was punished for the theft in question, exhausting that incident's relevance. Revisiting it now serves only to inflame, not inform, as double jeopardy principles prohibit re-prosecution for the same offense. This moot point cannot retroactively validate possession claims.

The prosecution's "ghost owner" dismissal is a strawman, the true issue is absent proof of my knowledge or control. Dismiss the possession charge for failure to meet its elements.

[Bruno Fontana]

I respectfully request court to summon Marcus and question him to personally answer one little question.

Mr Marcus, did i personally invite you to that place and asked you to help me to break in or load anything?
Or did you randomly followed me, as u entered and started loading thos illegal items on ur own ? .
And didn't i ask u to stop and get out?.

I hope you answer by truth only by the truth.

Thanks

[Mathew Stanley]

Your Honor, Judge Marcus Fernandes,

I respectfully address the court today to explain my role in the incident involving the unlawful entry into a private residence, an incident in which Carlos Dorato and I, Marcus Deluca, were involved.

First, I want to be honest with the court. Carlos Dorato is my friend and a business associate. We were working together on plans to create a fighting club, which was meant to be a legitimate business project. This relationship, however, had no connection to the events of that night, and I had no prior knowledge that Carlos intended to commit any crime.

On the night of the incident, I observed a masked individual prying open the door of a house. At that moment, I did not know who he was. I approached him and asked what he was doing. He stated that he was robbing the house. I replied that I was only looking for friends and was confused by the situation.

Shortly after, the individual removed his mask, and I realized it was Carlos Dorato. I want to make it clear, Your Honor, that Carlos did not invite me inside the house. I followed him inside on my own, out of shock and poor judgment, not with criminal intent or planning.

It is important for the court to know that the house did not belong to Carlos Dorato, and I was fully aware of that. Once inside, the situation escalated very quickly. Carlos began opening a safe and loading weapons. I did not break into the house, nor did I plan or initiate the robbery. However, I admit that I made a serious mistake by staying inside instead of leaving immediately.

In a moment of weakness and confusion, I carried an RPG case out of the house. Soon after, Carlos insisted that we leave before law enforcement arrived. As we exited the property, we were apprehended by Probationary Trooper Lester Jiovani.

Your Honor, I take responsibility for my actions and the choices I made after realizing what was happening. I deeply regret not walking away the moment I understood the seriousness of the situation. I respectfully ask the court to consider that I did not plan this crime, did not force entry, and did not believe the property belonged to Carlos.

I stand before you today speaking honestly, accepting accountability, and committed to making better decisions in the future. Thank you, Your Honor, for giving me the opportunity to explain my actions.

Signed

News Reporter
Real Estate Agent

Marcus Deluca

[Bruno Fontana]

Your Honor,

Mr. DeLuca's testimony and Mr. Esparza's sworn confession conclusively refute any conspiracy allegations.

Established Facts
DeLuca independently followed my solitary entry without prior knowledge or coordination, as he attested. Mr. Esparza accepts full ownership of the mansion contraband, admitting he exploited my misplaced trust post-robbery .
I already served nine months for the related apartment robbery .

Respectful Request
I acknowledge my sole responsibility for the unauthorized entry and contents accessed therein. Absent evidence of premeditation or linkage to other matters, I respectfully petition for my immediate release and case dismissal.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Marcus Fernandes]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

State of San Andreas
v.
Carlos Dorato

CASE # CV-0159
HONORABLE TRIAL JUDGE PRESIDING:
Marcus Fernandes

The First Judicial District Court recognises this Criminal Lawsuit as submitted by the Prosecutor Senior Detective Steven Collin on behalf of the San Andreas State Police, henceforth the Plaintiff. The evidence provided in the initial documentation provided by the state prosecution against Mr. Carlos Dorato, henceforth the Defendant, is deemed as sufficient and removes possibility for summary dismissal. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-159.

I. FINDINGS

The evidence provided in the initial documentation provided by the state prosecution against Carlos Dorato, henceforth the Defendant, has been reviewed and has found it sufficient enough to proceed with the charges against the Defendant. The court finds Mr. Carlos Dorato GUILTY.

The Court finds Mr. Carlos Dorato to be in violation of the following state laws, as outlined by the Plaintiff:

• SA-PSC § VI.1. Possession of an illegal substance
  - 51x Heroin
• SA-PSC § VI.2. Possession of weapons and explosives
  - 27x M4 Case
  - 197x AK47
  - 73x AK47 Case
  - 2x IED ( Improvised Explosive Device)
  - 1x Mine
  - 29x Molotov Cocktail
  - 16x Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) case
  - 27x Grenade case
• SA-PSC § VI.3. Miscellaneous items
  - 17962x Marked Money

• The Defendant, Carlos Dorato have violated SA-PSC § III.7 (Contempt of Court).

II. RULING

• The Defendant, Carlos Dorato is FINED $150,000 for his contemptuous conduct.

• The Defendant to remit a monetary fine of $11,122,454 equivalent to 40% of the Defendant's net worth of ($27,806,134) as a penalty for the aforementioned pressed charges.

• The Defendant has period of seven (7) days to fulfill the 2nd point, an amount of 10% interest is added for every 24 hours passed after the time limit is over in case the Defendant's net-worth had not been processed as ordered.

• The Defendant can pay the amount of 1st point stated, whenever he want within the given time limit directly to the Government Bank ((Group Account)) ID#1. ((Ensure to provide screenshot of the payment in that case to my Discord DMs or Forum PM me the transfer))

• The time stated in the 2nd point starts from 11th of January 2026 18:00 CET and ends at the 18th January 2026 18:00 CET. Failure to meet the deadline will result in the Court ordering further asset seizures as outlined in the 3rd point.

*Bangs his Gavel*

Signed,
Honorable Trial District Judge Marcus N. Fernandes