Rescission of Deferred Disposition Full Package

January 29, 2014

MICHELE LUMBERT, CLERK KENNEBEC COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 95 STATE STREET AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330

RE: STATE OF MAINE v. GINA LYNN TURCOTTE AUGSC-CR-20 12-286

Dear Michelle:

Enclosed you will find Defendant's Rescission of Agreement Under Deferred Disposition accompanied by a copy of the Order from Maine Supreme Judicial Court in KEN-14-18 and Defendant's 4th Motion to Dismiss.

Upon reading the law court's January 13th Order, I am rescinding my December 18, 2013 agreement to the deferred disposition contract because I was not informed by Hank Hainke, the court or by Plaintiff that MRAppP 3(b) prohibits any further trial activities, any deferred disposition contracts or plea agreements while KEN-14-18 was pending.

The Plaintiff had no authority to offer any plea agreement or to proceed with trial activities on December 18, 2013; therefore, the deferred disposition contract is null and void.

Considering the fact that the deferred disposition agreement is illegal, null and void, it is imperative that Defendant's 4th Motion to Dismiss be placed on the docket for an expedited hearing.

Please schedule this motion for hearing and notify all parties accordingly.

Thank you.

cc: Hank Hainke, Esq. Joelle Pratt, A.D.A.

In Pzrce,

~~ GinA Turcotte 32 COURT ST, APT 1 AUGUSTA, MAINE 207-333-0628

1 STATE OF MAINE

2 SUPERIOR COURT

3 KENNEBEC, ss .

4 AUGSC-CR-2012-00286

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

STATE OF MAINE

Plaintiff

v

GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

Defendant

*

*

*

*

*

DEFENDANT'S RESCISSION OF

AGREEMENT UNDER

DEFERRED DISPOSTION

12 NOW COMES DEFENDANT, GINA LYNN TURCOTTE, and rescinds her agreement

13 under deferred disposition for fraudulent nondisclosure, as described below:

14 1) Defendant has always maintained her absolute innocence nunc pro tunc.

15 2) Defendant's 3rd Motion to Dismiss was improperly denied on December 5 , 2013.

16 3) Defendant filed a notice of appeal from that order on that day under KEN-14-18 .

17 . 4) Defendant properly and immediately informed Plaintiff of such appeal.

18 5) Pursuant to MRAppP 3(b) , "The trial court shall take no further action pending

19 disposition of the appeal by the Law Court."

20 6) Pursuant to M.R.App.P. 3(b) Plaintiff was prohibited from entering a deferred

21 disposition agreement with or accepting a guilty plea from Defendant.

22 7) M.R.App.P. 3(b) required all trial activities to be suspended.

23 .8) Defendant communicated with Plaintiff via email on December 17, 2013, through

24 counsel Hank Hainke, unsuccessfully compelling Plaintiff to dismiss all charges.

25 9) Defendant was present in court and prepared for trial on December 18, 2013.

26 10) Plaintiff announced their willful dismissal of six of the seven pending charges.

27 11) Plaintiff and Defendant discussed pertinent facts offthe record in the courtroom on

28 December 18, 2013 while waiting for the judge and jury to be seated.

29 12) Defendant exercised her rights under MRCivP 76H(a) to record the entire exchange.

30 13) Plaintiff offered dismissal of Count 2 under a one-year deferred disposition.

31 14) 11 MRSA §1-1304. Obligation Of Good Faith, stipulates "Every contract or duty

32 within the Uniform Commercial Code imposes an obligation of good faith in its

3 3 performance and enforcement."

DEFENDANT'S RESCISSION OF AGREEMENT OF DEFERRED DISPOSITION Page 1 of 2

1 15) Defendant reserved her right to withdraw any guilty plea at any time.

2 16) Defendant's innocence was proven by Plaintiffs offer of deferred disposition of

3 Count 2 and outright dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 .

4 17) The law court appeal was denied on January 13, 2014 because Defendant

5 unwittingly accepted Plaintiffs illicit deferred disposition contract.

6 18) The law court stated in KEN-14-18, "Once Turcotte filed her notice of appeal, the

7 court was prohibited from taking any further action, including accepting the guilty

8 plea or entering the deferred disposition. M.R.App.P. 3(b)"

9 19) The law court wrongly assumed "the intent ofthe parties" at the time Defendant

10 entered the deferred disposition contract.

11 20) Defendant always asserted her intent to have all charges dismissed nunc pro tunc.

1 2 21) Plaintiff did not act in good faith when offering a deferred disposition.

1 3 22) Plaintiff was prohibited from signing any agreement with Defendant.

1 4 23) Plaintiff and Defendant are both required to know and obey all rules of court.

15 24) Superior Court violated M.R.App.P. 3(b) by accepting the deferred disposition .

1 6 25) Plaintiffs actions are equivalent to fraudulent nondisclosure.

17 . 26) Plaintiff has blatantly violated Defendant's due process rights nunc pro tunc.

18 27) Plaintiffs actions justify dismissal of all charges with disciplinary sanctions.

1 9 28) Plaintiffs actions justify redemption and remedial compensation for Defendant.

20

21 WHEREFORE, Defendant RESCINDS the agreement under deferred disposition for

2 2 fraudulent nondisclosure nunc pro tunc and demands redemption and damages.

2 3

2 4 Dated: January 29, 2014

25 GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

2 6

27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 8 This document was delivered by hand upon the District Attorney at the Office of the

2 9 District Attorney at 95 State Street Augusta, Maine on this day.

3 0

3 1

32

3 3

Dated: January 29, 2014

GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT'S RESCISSION OF AGREEMENT OF DEFERRED DISPOSITION Page 2 of 2

~ . tr '

STATE OF MAINE SUPREJ\!lE JUDICIAL COURT Sitting as the Law Court Docket No. Ken-14-18

State ofMaine

v. ORDER

Gina Lynn Turcotte

On December 5, 2013, Gina Lynn Turcotte filed a notice of appeal from an

order of the Superior Court, entered the same day, denying her motion to dismiss

the charges against her. On December 18,2013, Turcotte entered a guilty plea on

one of the seven counts against her, and the State dismissed the remaining counts.

The court entered a deferred disposition the same day.

Because the judgment of conviction has not yet been entered, 17-A M.R.S. §

1348-A (Z013), Turcotte's appeal is interlocutory. In addition, except for

conditional guilty pleas, M.R. Crim. P. ll(a)(2), there is norightto a direct appeal

from a guilty plea in a criminal case except for claims that the court lacked

jurisdiction or the punishment was illegal or cruel or unusual. State v. Huntley, 67 6

A.2d 501, 503 (Me. 1996). Furthermore, Turcotte, by agreeing to the deferred

disposition, is precluded from attacking it. 17-A M.R.S. § 1348-C (20 13).

Once Turcotte filed her notice of appeal, the court was prohibited from taking

any further action, including accepting the guilty plea or entering the deferred ·

disposition. M.R. App. P. 3(b). In order to effectuate the intent of the parties and the

court, however, this Court will provide relief from the rules pursuant to M.R. App. P.

14(c).

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. The provisions ofM.R. App. P. 3(b) are suspended retroactive to December

5, 2013, to the extent necessary to make all actions taken by the Superior Court after · )

Turcotte filed her notice of appeal are. valid.

2. Turcotte's appeal is DISMISSED as interlocutory.

Dated: January {3 , 2014 For the Court,

1 STATE OF MAINE

2 SUPERIOR COURT

3 KENNEBEC, ss.

4 AUGSC-CR-20 12-00286

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

STATE OF MAINE

Plaintiff

v

GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

Defendant

*

*

* DEFENDANT'S 4th MOTION TO DISMISS

*

*

12 NOW COMES DEFENDANT, GINA LYNN TURCOTTE, and moves this court to

13 dismiss all charges with prejudice for the following reasons:

14 1) Defendant has always maintained her absolute innocence nunc pro tunc.

15 2) Plaintiff has never had sufficient evidence to prove Defendant's guilt.

16 3) Plaintiff has repeatedly violated Defendant's right to a speedy trial, to receive all

17 exculpatory evidence, right to due process, inter alia.

18 4) Defendant's 3rd Motion to Dismiss was improperly denied on December 5, 2013;

19 Defendant filed a notice of appeal from that order on that day under KEN-14-18 .

20 5) Defendant properly and immediately informed Plaintiff of KEN-14-18.

21 6) Pursuant to MRAppP 3(b), "The trial court shall take no further action pending

22 disposition of the appeal by the Law Court."

23 . 7) M.R.App.P. 3(b) required all trial activities to be suspended thus prohibiting a

2 4 deferred disposition agreement or accepting any guilty plea from Defendant.

25 8) Defendant was present in court and prepared for trial on December 18, 2013

2 6 (which was also prohibited by M.R.App.P 3(b)) when Plaintiff announced their

27 willful dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 .

2 8 9) Plaintiff illicitly offered dismissal of Count 2 under a one-year deferred disposition.

29 10) MRAppP 3(b) prohibits Plaintiff from moving forward with any trial activities and

30 offering any agreement to Defendant therefore Plaintiff did not act in good faith

31 when offering a deferred disposition.

32 11) Defendant's agreement to the deferred disposttion was solicited fraudulently by

33 Plaintiff and is in fact null and void nunc pro tunc.

DEFENDANT'S 4th MOTION TO DISMISS Page 1 of 2

-1 12) Plaintiffs actions are equivalent to fraudulent nondisclosure justifying disciplinary

2 sanctions with dismissal of all charges plus remedial compensation for Defendant.

3

4 WHEREFORE, Defendant demands dismissal of all charges plus remedial

5 compensation.

6

7

8

9

10

Dated: January 29, 2014

GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

12 This document was delivered by hand upon the District Attorney at the Office of the

13 District Attorney at 95 State Street Augusta, Maine on this day.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Dated: January 29, 2014

GINA LYNN TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT'S 4th MOTION TO DISMISS Page 2 of 2