People v. Advincula

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 29, 2009
• Docket: CF0593-07
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT >@? LFR 29 2: f $ OF GUAM -P 1-J

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case NO. k~i~!$!)-GfCOURT Plaintiff, v. i DECISION AND ORDER re: Motion to Suppress TIMOTHY C. ADVINCULA, ) ) Defendant.

This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on March 12,2009. The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General Dianne H. Corbett. Defendant was represented by Attorney Jane L. Kennedy. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues the following decision denying Defendant's motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND On December 11,2007, Defendant was indicted for the Possession of a Schedule I1 Controlled Substance, a Third Degree Felony. On May 1,2008, the Defendant filed a two page combined, notice of motion, motion and memorandum of points and authorities, requesting that the evidence in Defendant's case be suppressed. The grounds for Defendant's motion was summarized by the Defendant with one sentence. Its memorandum of points of authorities consisted of three sentences.

DISCUSSION The People, in opposition to Defendant's motion to suppress, argue that Defendant's

motion should be denied because its is not sufficiently specific. The Defendant's did not file a written Reply in opposition to the People's motion. In Guam criminal motions are

regulated by Section 1.27 of Title 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8 Guam Code Ann. 5 1.27 (2008). It provides,

- L I L An application to the court for an order shall be by motion. A motion other than one made during a trial or hearing shall be in writing unless the court permits it to be made orally. It shall state the grounds upon which it is made and shall set forth the relief or order sought. It may be supported by affidavit.

Id.

In the federal circuits, motions to suppress are reviewed under the following standard: "[a] defendant seelung an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress must provide

sufficient information 'to enable the court to conclude that a substantial claim is presented and that there are disputed issues of material fact which will affect the outcome of the motion."' US. v. Juarez, 454 F.3d 717, 720 (7th Cir. 2006)(intemal citations omitted); see US. v. Sandoval, 390 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir. 2004)(a motion to suppress "must raise factual allegations that are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact . . . are and issue"); see also US. v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 1993)(a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in issue. . . . A hearing is not required if the grounds for suppression consist solely of conclusory allegations of illegality).

Applying this standard to a warrantless search of a defendant's apartment, the Eleventh Circuit Court held that despite stating that the search of defendant's residence was done without a warrant or valid waiver, the defendant's motion was insufficient. US. v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1528 (1 lth Cir. 1985). The court explained that, "the motion

stated little about the particulars of this search, mentioning only that the search was warrantless and without probable cause . . . . [nleither did it describe the scope of the search

carried out by the agents or the circumstances of the 'consent' alluded to in the motion." Id.

Page -2- 1 It held that "[gliven the nearly complete lack of factual allegations in the motion and 2 supporting materials filed by Reinaldo Crespo-Diaz, the trial court did not abuse its

11 discretion in denying the motion and refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing." Id.

In this case Defendant's motion also fails to meet the minimal burden of sufficiency 5 1 required of any motion to suppress. Defendant's motion does not describe the alleged

6 7 I1 offense, the date of the alleged offense, the location of the search, or the scope of the search. Although as described by the Eleventh Circuit and the California Supreme Court the burden 8 1 of sufficiency, especially in a warrantless search, is low, Defendant in this case fails to

9 provide sufficient facts to meet that burden. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1528; People v.

10 Williams, 973 P.2d 52, 59 (Cal. 1999).

l1 l2 11I CONCLUSION For the reasons above Defendant's motion to suppress is denied. ORDERED this 2 day of April

/ /

Michael J. Bordallo erior Court of Guam

Page -3-