People v. Aguon

Opinion

FILED CLERK OF COURT 2 Z02o JUL 17 AM 9: 55 3

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0444-20 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPO Report No. 20-20129 ) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) DECISION & ORDER ) RE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 10 MICHAEL QUINATAAGUON, DISMISS FOR WANT OF ) PROSECUTION DOB: 08/30/1980 11 )

12 Defendant. ________________ ))

13 This.matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Toleptino on April 23, 2026, for a 14

15 Motion Hearing. Defendant Michael Aguon Quinata ("Defendant") was present with counsel

16 Public Defender Ramiro Orozco. Assistant Attorney General Vernon Hosannah was present for 17 the People of Guam ("People"). The court addressed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want 18 of Prosecution, which was filed on March 4, 2026. Following the hearing, the court took the 19 matter under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, CVR 20

21 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.lofthe Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having duly considered

22 the parties' briefings, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision 23 and Order DENYING the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Based on events that occurred on or about August 10, 2020, the Defendant was charged 26

27 with the POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 3rd Degree

28 Felony). See Indictment (Nov. 10, 2020). In anticip~tion of Jury Selection and Trial, the

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 1 of9 Defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial on November 19, 2020. See Assertion (Nov. 19,

2 2020). Before the commencement of trial, the Defendant waived on the record and in writing on

3 November 30, 2020. See Waiver (Nov. 30, 2020). 4 While negotiations were ongoing, the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress on June 23, 5 2021. Because the Defendant was not present at the Motion Hearing to address this, the court 6

7 issued a bench warrant for his arrest. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at ll:14:09AM (Sep. 17, 2021). Upon

8 the warrant's return three (3) days later, the court released him and rescheduled the Motion 9 Hearing for a later date. See Return of Warrant Hr'g Mins. at 11:38:15AM (Sep. 21, 2021). 10 Despite the parties' stipulation to reschedule the Motion Hearing, the Defendant failed to 11 appear for the rescheduled hearing on January 27, 2022. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 2:08:50 - 12

13 11 :54PM (Jan. 27, 2022). In light of his absence and a second violation for not reporting to

14 Probation as ordered, the court issued another bench warrant for the Defendant's arrest. See Bench 15 Warrant (Jan. 28, 2022). However, this warrant was not returned until October 7, 2024. See Return 16 of Warrant (Oct. 7, 2024). 17 Despite the court's release of the Defendant, the Defendant again failed to appear at his 18

19 next hearing on January 8, 2025, which led to another bench warrant for his arrest. See Further

20 Proceedings Mins. at 10:46:05AM (Jan. 8, 2025). After the warrant's return on November 25, 21 2025, the court suspended a fifteen-day sanction and released the Defendant from confinement. 22 See Return of Warrant Hr'g Mins. at 10:17:53AM (Dec. 3, 2025). 23

24 On March 4, 2026, the Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

25 and Renewed Motion to Suppress ("Motion to Dismiss"). After the People filed a Reply to the

26 Motion to Dismiss, the court scheduled a hearing to address the Motion to Dismiss. At the Motion 27 Hearing, the court declined to address the Renewed Motion to Suppress until resolving the Motion 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 2 of9 to Dismiss first. After hearing the parties' arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, the court took the

2 matter under advisement.

3 · DISCUSSION 4 The Defendant argued that "[t]his prosecution has remained stagnant for an extended 5 period despite repeated defense inquiries and requests for plea discussions." Def. 's Mot. Dismiss 6

7 (Mar. 4, 2026). "If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court, on its own

8 motion, may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint." 8 GCA § 80.70(b). Before

9 granting dismissal under 8 GCA § 80.70(b), the court must determine whether a case's delay was 10 unnecessary enough to find a violation of the Defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial. 11 The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a speedy and public trial in all criminal 12

13 prosecutions against the accused. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. For U.S. citizens residing in Guam,

14 "[t]he Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, incorporated by the Organic Act of 15 Guam, guarantees the accused the 'right to a speedy and public trial."' People v. Mendiola, 2023 16 Guam 12 ,r 21 (citing U.S. Const. amend. VI.; 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b(g); 8 GCA § 1.1 l(a) (2005)). 17 The Guam Supreme Court has previously determined whether a person's constitutional 18

19 right to speedy trial was violated when considering, as a whole, the following factors in Barker v.

20 Wingo: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the cause of the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his 21 right to a speedy trial; and (4) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. People 22 v. Mendiola, 2015 Guam 26 ,r 13 (quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972)). This 23

24 court will now review the Barker factors to determine whether the Defendant's constitutional right

25 to a speedy trial was violated. 1

27 1 The Defendant cited to this court's analysis of the factors under Barker v. Wingo; specifically, the court's Decision 28 and Order issued in Criminal Case No. CM0262-21. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 2. Due to incomplete citations to its previous Decision and Order, the court reminds counsel ofrelevant standards for citing authority.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 3 of9 A. The Length of the Delay

2 The first Barker factor to review is how long of a delay exists in the Defendant's case.

3 "The length of the delay is measured from the point of arrest or indictment until trial." People v. 4 Naich, 2013 Guam 7,r 50 (citing People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r 43). Until there is delay that 5 is presumptively prejudicial, there is no need for inquiry into or balancing of the other Barker 6

7 factors. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. The more serious or complex the charge, the greater the

8 length of delay that will be tolerated. Id. at 530-31.

9 While there is no exact amount of time that constitutes as prejudicial, the Guam Supreme 10 Court has previously found delays of six (6) years and four (4) years to be prejudicial enough to 11 warrant examination of the other Barker factors. See Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r,r 43-44; see also 12

13 People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ,r 24. However, the Court has also held that an eighteen-month

14 delay did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation when much of that time was attributable 15 to the defendant. See Naich, 2013 Guam 7,r 57. 16 Without giving a specific length of delay, the Defendant argued that this case "has been 17 pending for years," which was "sufficient to trigger constitutional analysis." Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 18

19 3:23:23 - 48:55PM (Apr. 23, 2026). Additionally, the People made no comment on whether the

20 length of delay in this case was presumptively prejudicial pursuant to Barker. 21 Upon the court's review of the case, the Defendant was indicted for POSSESSION OF A 22 SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 3rd Degree Felony) on November 10, 2020. 23

24 See Indictment (Nov. 10, 2020). Because this case has not gone to trial, the court notes that it has

25 been approximately five (5) years and seven (7) months between the time of Indictment and the

26 filing of his Motion to Dismiss. The length of this delay on a single, felony possession charge is 27 longer than the maximum amount of imprisonment the Defendant faces if found guilty or entered 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 4 of9 his guilty plea - three (3) years. 2 Therefore, the court finds that the length of this delay is

2 presumptively prejudicial enough to warrant further review of the other Barker factors.

3 B. The Cause of the Delay 4 Under the second Barker factor, the court must review the People's reasons for the delay 5 in bringing the Defendant to trial. In comparison to "[a] deliberate attempt to delay trial in order 6

7 to hamper the defense," a more neutral reason for the People's delay is weighed less heavily but

8 still requires consideration. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ,i 61 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531).

9 The People argued that this case "would have been settled years ago, either by trial or 10 plea." Ppl. 's Response at 3. However, "an urgent trial date scheduled for March 1st, 2021 ... was 11 followed by Violation Reports, Motions to Suppress and Stipulations." Id. In contrast, the 12

13 Defendant indicated that he "sought plea negotiations and resolution since late 2025, yet no plea

14 offers or discovery update has followed." Def.' s Mot. Dismiss at 2. 15 Because neither party addressed the Defendant's warrants in their written pleadings, the 16 court reminds the parties of the warrants issued for his arrest in this case: (1) Bench Warrant issued 17 on September 17, 2021, that was returned on September 20, 2021; (2) Bench Warrant issued on 18

19 January 28, 2022, that was returned on October 7, 2024; and (3) Bench Warrant issued on January

20 15, 2025, that was returned November 25, 2025. 3 After rescheduling the Defendant's Motion 21 Hearing due to his nonappearance, the court also notes that the parties previously stipulated to 22 continue the hearing once more. See Stipulation & Order (Nov. 18, 2021). 23

25 2 "In cases where § 67.401.11 is applicable to the sentencing of a person, a person who has not been previously 26 convicted of a felony relative to the possession of any controlled substance and has been convicted of a felony for the first time relative to possession of methamphetamine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of no more 27 than three (3) years and a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00)." 9 GCA § 67.401.12 (emphasis added). 3 See Bench Warrant (Sep. 17, 2021); see also Return of Warrant (Sep. 20, 2021); see also Bench Warrant (Jan. 28, 28 2022); see also Return of Warrant (Oct. 7, 2024); see also Bench Warrant (Jan. 15, 2025); see also Return of Warrant (Nov. 25, 2025).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 5 of9 While the Defendant attributes some of the delay in this case to receiving no "discovery

2 update" from the People, the Defendant did not raise any issue over the People's compliance with

3 its discovery obligations in this case until approximately five (5) years and five (5) months after 4 the court's discovery deadline of January 5, 2021. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 2; see also Criminal 5 Trial Scheduling Order (Dec. 14, 2020). 6

7 Despite all of this, the Defendant argued that the People have had ample time to move

8 forward in resolving this case. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 3:23:23 - 48:55PM (Apr. 23, 2026). The 9 Defendant's bench warrants, the parties' previous stipulation, and oral requests to continue 10 negotiations made on the record do not show that the People deliberately attempted to delay trial 11 to hamper the defense. Therefore, the court finds that the cause for the delay weighs against the 12

13 Defendant.

14 C. Defendant Aguon's Assertion of His Right to a Speedy Trial 15 This next factor calls this court to consider the Defendant's assertion of speedy trial. In 16 order to successfully argue that a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred, a defendant bears the 17 responsibility to proactively assert a speedy trial claim. See Mendiola, 1999 Guam ,i 29 (citing 18

19 Barker, 407 U.S. at 529). "[F]ailure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to

20 prove that he was denied a speedy trial." Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. Even with a defendant's 21 assertion of speedy trial, which is entitled to strong evidentiary weight, the court must exercise its 22 judicial discretion, viewing that assertion in light of the defendant's other conduct. See Flores, . 23

24 2009 Guam ,r 47 (citing United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302,314 (1986)).

25 As to this third factor, the Defendant made no comment on his previous assertion of speedy 26 trial in the Motion to Dismiss. Conversely, the People cited to the Defendant's previous assertion 27 of speedy trial in its Response but stated on the record that "the Defendant could have asserted at 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 6 of9 any time but chose not to." Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 3:23:23 - 48:55PM (Apr. 23, 2026). Based on the

2 court's review of this case, the Defendant did assert his right to speedy trial on November 19,

3 2020, before his eventual waiver on November 30, 2020. See Assertion (Nov. 19, 2020); see also 4 Waiver (Nov. 30, 2020). 5 After filing his waiver, the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress on June 23, 2021. Aside 6

7 from the bench warrants issued for the Defendant's arrest, the Defendant also made at least two

8 requests to vacate the trial date and represented that an offer letter was received. 4 The Defendant's 9 most recent conduct was the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Suppress on

March 4, 2026. In light of the Defendant's other conduct, the court finds that this factor weighs 11 against him. 12

13 D. The Presence or Absence of Prejudice Resulting from the Delay

14 The last factor for the court to review is whether the Defendant suffered any prejudice due 15 to the delay in this case. An "[i]nordinate delay between public charge and trial" may (1) prejudice 16 "a defense on the merits"-such as through the deterioration of crucial evidence, unavailability of 17 witnesses, or subversion of the defendant's ability to prepare for trial-or (2) seriously prejudice 18

19 "defendant's liberty, . . . disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his

20 associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends." 21 People v. Corpuz, 2019 Guam 1 ,r 25; United States v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2016) 22 (quoting United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 340-41 (1988)) (explaining prejudice to defendant 23

24 may come in trial prejudice or non-trial prejudice); People v. Aromin, 2014 Guam 3 ,r 24. Because

25 this case did not go to trial, the court will examine the existence of any non-trial prejudice against

26 the Defendant. 27

4 28 See Further Proceedings Mins. at 9:25:29-27:46AM (Feb. 15, 2021); see also Further Proceedings Mins. at 9:22:03 - 25:31AM (Feb. 23, 2021); see also Further Proceedings Mins. at 1:49:05 - 49:47PM (Mar. 8, 2021).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 7 of9 this case did not go to trial, the court will examine the existence of any non-trial prejudice against

2 the Defendant.

3 As to the offenses charged in this case, the Defendant argued that the People's neglect 4 caused substantial prejudice in the following ways: (1) witness memory and evidence have 5 deteriorated since the 2020 offense; (2) the Defendant's ability to investigate or prepare a defense 6

7 is impaired; and (3) he remains under restrictive release conditions, sustaining anxiety and

8 reputational harm. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 3. 9 When asked about these possible prejudices to the Defendant at the Motion Hearing, 10 however, the Defendant noted that he is presuming that after six (6) years of delay, "clearly 11 memories have faded." Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 3:23:23 - 48:55PM (Apr. 23, 2026). Although he has 12

13 not been in confinement for some time, the Defendant argued that he is still prejudiced by "the

14 risk of revocation for violations" in this case. Id. Although the Defendant was not clear as to what 15 revocation he could be subjected to, the only thing that the court can revoke in this pre-trial matter 16 is his pre-trial release status. Without more than conclusory presumptions of prejudice suffered 17 by the Defendant, the court is not convinced that the prejudice was so substantial to prove 18

19 unnecessary delay in this case. Therefore, the court finds that this factor weighs against the

20 Defendant. 21 Because majority of the Barker factors weigh against the Defendant, the court finds that 22 there was no violation of his constitutional right to speedy trial and denies the dismissal of this 23

24 case.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 8 of9 CONCLUSION

2 For reasons stated above, the court hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

3 for Want of Prosecution. 4

5 A Further Proceedings is scheduled before this court on July 29, 2026, at 2:00PM. 6

8 SO ORDERED - - - - - - - - - - - JUL 1i7 2026 9

II

13 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14

23 SiE~VIl«:!E VRA ~-M!.l!.C[L, 24 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 25 _1-l{;,, ,r /h7$v

26 - [tJ2c,~ 27 ✓..:<..:J==--1 · / - - = - - " ' ~ = ~ rt of Guam 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's ·Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Aguon, CF0444-20 Page 9 of9