,.L r Q ED SUPEMIOR COURT GUAH
1 2l]2IJUH 15 PH 5: 01 2 CLERK OF COURT
3 By'
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0220-18
6 vs.
7 D EC I S I O N AND ORDER JOHNNY LUJAN AGUON 9 DOB: 09/30/1960 (Motion for Reduction of Sentence) 8 Defendant. 9
10 INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas upon the Motion for 11 Reduction of Sentence tiled by Defendant Johnny Lujan Aguon ("Defendant"). Defendant is 12 represented by Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff. Assistant Attorney General 13 Christine Santos Tenorio represents the People of Guam ("the People"). Having considered the 14 arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion for 15 Reduction of Sentence. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On April 24, 2018, the Defendant was charged with the following crimes: (1) First 18 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a IS Degree Felony), (2) Attempted First Degree 19 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a IS Degree Felony), (3) Second Degree Criminal Sexual 20 Conduct (as a 1 S1 Degree Felony), (4) Indecent Exposure (as a 3rd Degree Felony), and (5) 21 Harassment (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, the People 22 dismissed the charge of Indecent Exposure. On February 18, 2019, a petit jury for the Superior 23 Court of Guam found Defendant guilty for all remaining charges. At a sentencing hearing held 24
Page 1 of 5 1 on June 13, 2019, the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas sentenced the Defendant to a total of thirty
2 (30) years imprisonment at the Department of Corrections, to include the following:
3 a) Thirty (30) years imprisonment at the Department of Corrections for the conviction of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and the merged offense of Attempted First 4 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, b ) F if t een ( 1 5 ) yea r s imp r is onment a t t he D ep a r t ment of C or r ec t ions f or t he 5 Conviction of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, to run concurrent with the above sentence, 6 c) Sixty (60) days imprisonment at the Department of Corrections for the conviction of Harassment, to run concurrent with the above sentences. 7 After Defendant's sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Guam, Defendant filed a 8 Motion for Reduction of Sentence on Apr il 20, 2021. T he People filed an Opposition to 9 Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence on May 12, 2021. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Title 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 permits a defendant to request that the court reduce the 12 defendant's sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days of the 13 Supreme Court of Guam's affirmance of the sentence. See 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 (2015). Here, the 14 Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Defendant's sentence on December 23, 2020. Defendant 15 tiled his Motion 118 days later on April 20, 2021. Therefore, the filing of his Motion was 16 timely because it was filed within 120 days of the Guam Supreme Court decision. Although the 17 Motion was timely, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence for 18 the reasons set forth below. 19 1. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF 20 SENTENCE BECAUSE THE THIRTY-YEAR SENTENCE IS LEGAL AND WITHIN THE RANGE PERMITTED BY GUAM LAW. 21 Guam law provides that prison sentences for First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct 22 offenses, which Defendant was convicted, may range from a minimum of fifteen years to a 23 maximum of life imprisonment. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.15(b) (2015). Here, the Defendant was 24
Page 2 of 5 1 sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. Thus, because the sentence was less than the maximum
2 of life in prison, and more than the minimum of fifteen years imprisonment, the Defendant's
3 sentence falls within the permitted statutory range. Because the sentence is legal under Guam
4 law, any reduction of the sentence is based on the Court's discretion.
5 II. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BECAUSE IT FINDS THAT THE THIRTY YEAR 6 SENTENCE IS APPROPRIATE WHEN CONSIDERING RELEVANT SENTENCING FACTORS. 7 While a Defendant may request that a court reduce an imposed sentence under 8 G.C.A. 8 § 120.46, such a reduction is based on the Court's discretion. Because 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 9 mirrors former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, the Court looks ro persuasive federal 10 cases when interpreting this statute. Federal courts have found that when submitting a Motion to 11 Reduce Sentence, a defendant requests leniency from the court. U.S. v. Eastman, 743 F. ad 12 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1984). If a lawful sentence was imposed in the first instance, a court may 13 use its discretion to reduce a sentence if it determines that "the original sentence now seems 14 unduly harsh" upon further reflection. U.S. v. Maynard, 485 F. ad 247, 248 (9th Cir. 1973). 15 Here, it has been established that the Defendant's sentence was lawful. Therefore, the 16 17 Defendant appeals for leniency and requests that the Court consider reducing his sentence to
18 fifteen years from the imposed thirty years. Def.'s Mot. (Apr. 20, 2021) at 2. Defendant's
19 counsel argues that the thirty year sentence is fifteen years more than the requisite minimum
20 sentence, and that a fifteen year sentence would already be a long sentence. Id. Additionally,
Defendant's counsel argues that the Court should reduce the Defendant's sentence because he 21 22 maintains his innocence, is a hard worker, and will be "over seventy years old" upon release
23 after only a fifteen year sentence. Id. Without further explanation, defense counsel also contends
24 that the minimum sentence would adequately serve the interests of the public. Id.
Page 3 of S 1 The People's Opposition rejects these notions, arguing that there is no reason that the
2 Defendant's sentence should be reduced. People's Opp'n (May 12, 2021) at 3. The People
3 argue that the factors established in Title 9 G.C.A. § 80.60(b) support a thirty year sentence. Id.
4 Additionally, the People argue that there has not been any change in circumstances that would
5 warrant a reduction of the Defendant's thirty year sentence, and that the sentence, as imposed,
6 is appropriate to incapacitate the Defendant and deter him from committing further crimes. Id.
7 While Guam law does not provide a definitive list of factors courts are required to
8 consider when imposing sentences, Guam has adopted factors to be considered when imposing
9 or withholding probation in lieu of imprisonment under 9 G.C.A. § 80.60. People v. Manila,
10 2018 Guam 24 iI 13. A trial court's discretion in sentencing is "largely unlimited either as to
11 the kind of information [it] may consider, or the source from which it may come." Id. at
12 (quoting People v. Castro, 2013 Guam 20 '][ 62) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts may
13 consider a breadth of information regarding the character and nature of the defendant and his
14 criminal conduct during sentencing. Manila, 2018 Guam 24 'll 12-13. For example, the Court
15 may consider sentencing memoranda and the presentence investigation report. People v.
16 Damian, 2016 Guam 8 *][ 24. This report includes information regarding "circumstances
17 attending the commission of the crime" and the "physical and mental condition" of the
18 defendant, among other factors. 9 G.C.A. § 80.l2(c).
19 Here, the Court considered these factors at sentencing. The Court found the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
,.L r Q ED SUPEMIOR COURT GUAH
1 2l]2IJUH 15 PH 5: 01 2 CLERK OF COURT
3 By'
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0220-18
6 vs.
7 D EC I S I O N AND ORDER JOHNNY LUJAN AGUON 9 DOB: 09/30/1960 (Motion for Reduction of Sentence) 8 Defendant. 9
10 INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas upon the Motion for 11 Reduction of Sentence tiled by Defendant Johnny Lujan Aguon ("Defendant"). Defendant is 12 represented by Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff. Assistant Attorney General 13 Christine Santos Tenorio represents the People of Guam ("the People"). Having considered the 14 arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion for 15 Reduction of Sentence. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On April 24, 2018, the Defendant was charged with the following crimes: (1) First 18 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a IS Degree Felony), (2) Attempted First Degree 19 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a IS Degree Felony), (3) Second Degree Criminal Sexual 20 Conduct (as a 1 S1 Degree Felony), (4) Indecent Exposure (as a 3rd Degree Felony), and (5) 21 Harassment (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, the People 22 dismissed the charge of Indecent Exposure. On February 18, 2019, a petit jury for the Superior 23 Court of Guam found Defendant guilty for all remaining charges. At a sentencing hearing held 24
Page 1 of 5 1 on June 13, 2019, the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas sentenced the Defendant to a total of thirty
2 (30) years imprisonment at the Department of Corrections, to include the following:
3 a) Thirty (30) years imprisonment at the Department of Corrections for the conviction of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and the merged offense of Attempted First 4 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, b ) F if t een ( 1 5 ) yea r s imp r is onment a t t he D ep a r t ment of C or r ec t ions f or t he 5 Conviction of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, to run concurrent with the above sentence, 6 c) Sixty (60) days imprisonment at the Department of Corrections for the conviction of Harassment, to run concurrent with the above sentences. 7 After Defendant's sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Guam, Defendant filed a 8 Motion for Reduction of Sentence on Apr il 20, 2021. T he People filed an Opposition to 9 Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence on May 12, 2021. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Title 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 permits a defendant to request that the court reduce the 12 defendant's sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days of the 13 Supreme Court of Guam's affirmance of the sentence. See 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 (2015). Here, the 14 Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Defendant's sentence on December 23, 2020. Defendant 15 tiled his Motion 118 days later on April 20, 2021. Therefore, the filing of his Motion was 16 timely because it was filed within 120 days of the Guam Supreme Court decision. Although the 17 Motion was timely, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence for 18 the reasons set forth below. 19 1. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF 20 SENTENCE BECAUSE THE THIRTY-YEAR SENTENCE IS LEGAL AND WITHIN THE RANGE PERMITTED BY GUAM LAW. 21 Guam law provides that prison sentences for First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct 22 offenses, which Defendant was convicted, may range from a minimum of fifteen years to a 23 maximum of life imprisonment. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.15(b) (2015). Here, the Defendant was 24
Page 2 of 5 1 sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. Thus, because the sentence was less than the maximum
2 of life in prison, and more than the minimum of fifteen years imprisonment, the Defendant's
3 sentence falls within the permitted statutory range. Because the sentence is legal under Guam
4 law, any reduction of the sentence is based on the Court's discretion.
5 II. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BECAUSE IT FINDS THAT THE THIRTY YEAR 6 SENTENCE IS APPROPRIATE WHEN CONSIDERING RELEVANT SENTENCING FACTORS. 7 While a Defendant may request that a court reduce an imposed sentence under 8 G.C.A. 8 § 120.46, such a reduction is based on the Court's discretion. Because 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 9 mirrors former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, the Court looks ro persuasive federal 10 cases when interpreting this statute. Federal courts have found that when submitting a Motion to 11 Reduce Sentence, a defendant requests leniency from the court. U.S. v. Eastman, 743 F. ad 12 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1984). If a lawful sentence was imposed in the first instance, a court may 13 use its discretion to reduce a sentence if it determines that "the original sentence now seems 14 unduly harsh" upon further reflection. U.S. v. Maynard, 485 F. ad 247, 248 (9th Cir. 1973). 15 Here, it has been established that the Defendant's sentence was lawful. Therefore, the 16 17 Defendant appeals for leniency and requests that the Court consider reducing his sentence to
18 fifteen years from the imposed thirty years. Def.'s Mot. (Apr. 20, 2021) at 2. Defendant's
19 counsel argues that the thirty year sentence is fifteen years more than the requisite minimum
20 sentence, and that a fifteen year sentence would already be a long sentence. Id. Additionally,
Defendant's counsel argues that the Court should reduce the Defendant's sentence because he 21 22 maintains his innocence, is a hard worker, and will be "over seventy years old" upon release
23 after only a fifteen year sentence. Id. Without further explanation, defense counsel also contends
24 that the minimum sentence would adequately serve the interests of the public. Id.
Page 3 of S 1 The People's Opposition rejects these notions, arguing that there is no reason that the
2 Defendant's sentence should be reduced. People's Opp'n (May 12, 2021) at 3. The People
3 argue that the factors established in Title 9 G.C.A. § 80.60(b) support a thirty year sentence. Id.
4 Additionally, the People argue that there has not been any change in circumstances that would
5 warrant a reduction of the Defendant's thirty year sentence, and that the sentence, as imposed,
6 is appropriate to incapacitate the Defendant and deter him from committing further crimes. Id.
7 While Guam law does not provide a definitive list of factors courts are required to
8 consider when imposing sentences, Guam has adopted factors to be considered when imposing
9 or withholding probation in lieu of imprisonment under 9 G.C.A. § 80.60. People v. Manila,
10 2018 Guam 24 iI 13. A trial court's discretion in sentencing is "largely unlimited either as to
11 the kind of information [it] may consider, or the source from which it may come." Id. at
12 (quoting People v. Castro, 2013 Guam 20 '][ 62) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts may
13 consider a breadth of information regarding the character and nature of the defendant and his
14 criminal conduct during sentencing. Manila, 2018 Guam 24 'll 12-13. For example, the Court
15 may consider sentencing memoranda and the presentence investigation report. People v.
16 Damian, 2016 Guam 8 *][ 24. This report includes information regarding "circumstances
17 attending the commission of the crime" and the "physical and mental condition" of the
18 defendant, among other factors. 9 G.C.A. § 80.l2(c).
19 Here, the Court considered these factors at sentencing. The Court found the
20 circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime to be particularly serious as they
21 involved the sexual assault of a 10-year-old female known to the Defendant on several
22 occasions between 2013 and 2018. This was a serious crime involving the abuse of a position of
23 trust and a vulnerable victim. In addition, at the sentencing hearing, the Court noted the
24 Defendant's lack of remorse and lack of acceptance of any responsibility. Min. Entry (Jun. 13,
Page 4 of 5 1 2019). While the defense notes the Defendant will be over seventy years old after a fifteen year
2 sentence, this is information was known at the time of sentencing. Additionally, consideration
3 of a defendant's age is not normally relevant in sentencing determinations. U.S. v. Lee, 232 F.
4 ad 898 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court does not find any of the other factors raised by the defense to
5 be persuasive. Thus, given the seriousness of this crime and the other relevant factors discussed
6 above, the Court concludes that the Defendant's sentence was appropriate.
7 CONCLUSION 8 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion for Reduction of 9 Sentence. 10
JUN 15 2021 IT IS SO ORDERED 12 1 13 ( /25 I
14 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15
19 ananvucs VIA E-mAIL 20 I aduwwwae Rf in elecuunr an-u1nanliqn1alwase-nniuunm Ac-. i poem 21
22 6n-e[1vl;Hw'1..5 m
23 BUDIIUUIIK. liorouund&llm
Page 5 of 5