People v. Ainna

Opinion

•

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

3 )

4 Plaintiff, )

)

5 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER )

6 ATTAICHY AINNA, )

7 )

Defendant. )

8 11--------------------------)

9 INTRODUCTION

10 lbis matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II consolidate, filed January 29, 2014. Oral arguments were heard on March ll, 2014. Assistant 12 Attorney General Charles Kinnunen appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant Public 13 Defender Suresh Sampath represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral 14 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.

15 BACKGROUND

16 On January 29, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the following cases: CF 17 0304-13; CF 0544-11; and CM 0323-13.

18 In CF 0304-13, Defendant was charged with two connts of Aggravated Assault, as a 3"'

19 Degree Felony, with a special allegation of possession and use of a deadly weapon in the 20 commission of a felony for both counts. According to the indictment, the incident occurred on 21 or about Jnne I, 2013.

22 In CF 0544-11, Defendant was charged with Terrorizing, as a 3'' Degree Felony;

23 Criminal Mischief, as a Misdemeanor; and Public Drunkenness, as a Violation. According to 24 the magistrate's complaint, the incident occurred on or about September 29,2011. This matter 25 is post-judgment.

26 In CM 0323-13, Defendant was charged with Theft of Property, as a Misdemeanor;

27 Disorderly Conduct, as a Petty Misdemeanor; and Public Drunkenness, as a Violation.

28

Page 1 of3

------------

1

According to the magistrate's complaint, the incident occurred on or about March 31,2013.

2 Defendant argues that the three cases split between two judges is causing difficulty in 3 negotiating a resolution to these cases, and consolidation under one judge would aid in the 4 resolution of these cases. (Mot. to Consolidate, I, Jan. 29, 2014). 5 The Government did not file an opposition. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Guam law, ''[t]he court may order two or more indictments or information or both s to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been 9 joined in a single indictment or information. The procedure shall be the same as if the 10 prosecution were under such single indictment or information." 8 GCA § 65.30 (2005). In

11 addition, "[t]wo (2) or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a 12 separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or 13 are based on the same act or transaction or on two (2) or more acts or transactions corrected

14 together or constituting parts of a conunon scheme or plan." 8 GCA § 55.35 (a}(2005). IS When determining whether the offenses are properly joined, courts have traditionally 16 considered "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they involve similar 11 victims, locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the charged conduct

18 occurred." United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (1st Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). 19 Furthermore, ''the validity of joining offenses is determined solely by the allegations in the 20 indictment." United States v. Greene, 52 F.3d 335, *I (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v.

21 Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447 (1986)). 22 In this case, Defendant fails to cite to any legal authority in support of his proposition. 23 Absent a showing of how the tlrree matters should be joined under the applicable law, the 24 motion cannot be granted. See Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 ~ 35 ("In order to conduct a 2s meaningful review, the parties must articulate their arguments in a way that allows this court to

26 apply recognized rules oflaw ... lt is not sufficient for a party 'simply to announce a position or 27

28

Page 2 of3

assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his 2 claims' "). 3 Despite the deficiencies in Defendant's motio~ the Court fmds that the three cases 4 should not be consolidated. Reviewing the magistrate's complaints and indictment for the three 5 cases, the cases do not involve similar victims, locations, or modes of operatic~ and the 6 charged conducts occurred over a span of approximately two years. Taylor, 54 F.3d at 973. 1 Further, the offenses charged are not of the similar character, since they involve an offense s against a person (aggravated assault), an offense against habitation (criminal mischief), and a 9 property offense (theft) which occurred on three separate dates to differing victims. 8 GCA § 10 55.35 (a) (2005). Therefore, the charged offenses are unable to he joined in a single indictment 11 or information and shall not be consolidated. 8 GCA § 65.30 (2005). 12 For these reasons, the motion to consolidate is denied. 13 fff

14 Iff

15 Iff

16 CONCLUSION 11 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to consolidate is hereby DENIED. 18

19

20 SO ORDERED t h i s . day of April, 2014. 21

22

23

24 RON. JAMES L. CANTO II -

" 26 Judge, Superior Court of Guam SE-R\liCE VIA COURT BOX I acknowledge lhal a copy of the 27 ori(Jinall'lerelo was placed In the

~"""'" '"'~ , r/J ,._~&P.,

28 nR U1

, upellOf ouft

Page 3 of3