E E*
l ELERK OF COURT
2 2025 APR 2Q85 PM J:
g9% -9 PH 59
8 5g
Fl .. :**; F 1>~\~.
.!*,r*6
3 ?" G! 2 5. 43:1 *Zh* .° §"'a5"if
4
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
6 ) CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO. NO. CM0363-22 CM0363-22
7 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) GPD Report ReportNo.
No.21 -26405
21-26405
)
8 vs. )
)
9 ) DECISION DECISION & ORDER
) RE. PEOPLE'S PEOPLE'S MOTION
MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
DISMISS
10 10 UGOCHUKWU ENYINNAYA UGOCHUKWUENYINNAYAAKOMA, WITHOUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PREJUDICE IN THE
)
DOB: DOB:02/28/1972 02/28/1972 INTEREST INTEREST OF
OF JUSTICE
111 1 )
)
12 12 )
________________ Defendant.
Defendant. )
)
13 13
14 14 This matter came came before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable Alberto E.
E. Tolentino
Tolentinoon
onJanuary
January 9, 2025,
2025, for aa
15 15 Status Hearing. Defendant Status Hearing. DefendantUgochukwu UgochukwuEnyinnaya
EnyinnayaAkoma
Aroma ("Defendant")
("Defendant") was
was present
present with
16 16 counsel counsel Attorney Joaquin Arriola Jr.
Joaquin Arriola Jr. Assistant Attorney General General Grant
Grant Olen
Olan was present for the
17 17
18 18 People of of Guam ("People"). The
Guam ("People"). ThePeople Peoplepreviously
previouslyfiled
fileda aMemorandum
MemorandumSupporting
Supporting the People
19 of Guam's Guam's Motion Motion toto Dismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudice on
onDecember
December 10,
10, 2024.
2024. During
During the
the Status
Status
20 20 Hearing, the court addressed addressedthe
thePeople's
People's Motion
Motion and
and ultimately sue
sua sponge
sponte dismissed the case.
21 As to As to the the issue
issue of
ofwhether
whether to
todismiss
dismiss this case with
this case withprejudice, prejudice, the
the court
court took
took the
the matter
matter under
under
22 advisement pursuantotoSupreme advisement pursuant Supreme Court Court ofofGuam
Guam Administrative
Administrative Rule
Rule 06-001,
06-001, 7.l(e)(6)(A)
CVR7.l(e)(6)(A) CVR
23 23
24 24 and CR 1.1 of the Local 1.1 of ofthe Rules of
Local Rules the Superior Superior Court
Court of
ofGuam.
Guam. Having
Having duly
duly considered
consideredthe
the parties
parties'
25 25 briefings, briefings, oral oral arguments,
arguments, and the
the applicable
applicable law, the
the court
court now issues Decision and issues this Decision and Order 26 26 DENYING DENYINGthe thePeople's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
Dismisswithout
without Prejudice.
Prejudice.
27 \\ 28
Decision Decision &&Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page l of Page 1 of 13
BACKGROUND
1
2 2022, Defendant On October 20, 2022, Defendant Akoma was charged Aroma was charged with two counts counts of Fourth Degree
of Fourth
3 Criminal Sexual Conduct Conduct (As
(As a Misdemeanor). See Magistrate's Con Compl. (Oct.
(Oct. 20,
20, 2022).
2022). During
During
4 Arraignment on November 1, his Arraignment 1, 2022, 2022, the
the Defendant
Defendant waived speedy trial.
waived his right to speedy trial. See See
5 Arraign. H'rg Arraign. H'rg Mims.
Mins. (Nov. 1,
1, 2022).
2022). On
On February
February 13,
13, 2023,
2023, the
the Defendant
Defendantfiled
filed aa Motion
Motion to
6
7 Extend Time, which the People did Extend did not not oppose.
oppose. The
The court
court allowed
allowed the
the parties
parties more
more time to
8 appropriately respond respond to
to the
themotions
motionsbeing
beingfiled.
filed.
9 Events Leading Up to Trial A. Events
10 10 14, 2023,
On April 14, 2023, the
the Defendant
Defendantfiled
filed two
two Motions in Liming Guam Rule Limine to exclude Guam Rule of of
11 ("G.R.E.")404(b)
Evidence ("G.R.E.") 404(b)and and413
413evidence,
evidence,and
and hearsay evidence. 1 On April hearsay evidence April 17, 17, 2023,
2023, the
the
12 12
13 13 People subsequently filed People subsequently Notice oflntent itsNotice
filed its Intent to toAdmit
Admit 413
413Evidence. SeePpl.
Evidence.See 's Notice Ppl.'s Notice (Apr. 17,
17,
14 14 2023). On On June 22, 2023,
June 22, 2023, the
the court
court held
held an
anevidentiary
evidentiary hearing
hearing on
on the
the Defendant's
Defendant's Motions
Motions in
1155 Liming and the Limine and the People's Notice.
Notice. After
Afterhearing
hearingthe
theparties'
parties'argument,
argument, the
the court
court took
took the
the matter
matter
16 16 under advisement under advisement and and subsequently
subsequentlyissued
issuedits
itsDecision
Decision and
and Order
Order excluding
excluding the
the admission
admission of
17 17 G.R.E. 413 G.R.E. 413 evidence.
evidence. See Decisionand See Decision andOrder
Order O\Iov.
(Nov. 13, 2023).
18 18
19 19 January 30, On January 30,2024,
2024,the
theDefendant
Defendantfiled Statement asserting filed a Statement assertinghis hisright
right to
to speedy
speedy trial.
20 Statement (Jan.
See Statement (Jan. 30, 30, 2024).
2024). Upon his assertion, assertion, the court scheduled scheduled Jury
Jury Selection
Selection and
and Trial
Trial
21 for March March 25,
25, 2024,
2024, in
in accordance
accordance with the
the mandated sixty-day speedy mandated sixty-day speedy trial trial time
time frame
frame for
22 Defendants 2See
released Defendants. SeeAmended AmendedCriminal
CriminalTrial
TrialScheduling
SchedulingOrder
Order(Jan.
(Jan.31,
31,2024).
2024). At
AtaaFurther
Further
23 23 24 Proceedings on February 20, 2024, the Defendant requested the court requested the court to extend this case's Jury 24
25 and Trial date Selection and date to 8, 2024.
to April 8, 2024. See Further Proceedings See Further ProceedingsMins.
Mims.atat10:43:24AM
l0:43:24AM (Feb.
26 26
27 27 11 See Mot. in Limine See Mot. Liming to Exclude Hearsay (Apr. 14, 2023); Mot. in Limine 14, 2023), 413 Evidence Liming to Exclude GRE 404(B) and413 Evidence (Apr. 14, 2023).
28 28 2 G.C.A. §§ 80.60(a)(3),
Under 88 G.C.A. Under 80.60(a)(3), tnlal for aa released trial for released defendant must commence defendant must commence within within sixty (60) days
sixty (60) days after
after
arraignment.
Decision &&Order Decision OrderRe.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
, People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page Page 2 of
of 13
20, 2024). 20, 2024). The Defendant expressed expressed his
his willingness
willingness to
to waive his right to speedy speedy trial
trial until
until the
the
1
2 2 Conference on April Pre-Trial Conference April 3, 3, 2024. Id With
2024. Id Withtwenty-one
twenty-one(21)
(21)days
dayshaving
havinglapsed
lapsed since
since the
the
3 assertion, the Defendant's assertion, the court court granted
grantedthe
thecontinuance
continuanceof
ofJury
JurySelection
Selectionand
andTrial
Trialto
toApril
April 8,
II
4 . . . . .
2024; leaving thirty-nlne 2024, thirty-nine (39) days remaining remaining on the
the clock.
clock. Id.
Id
5 response to In response to the
the People's
People's Notice
Notice of Intent
Intent to 404(b) Evidence to Use 404(b) Evidence at at Trial
Trial filed on
on
6
7 February 29, 29, 2024,
2024,the
theDefendant
Defendantfiled
filed his
his Motion
Motion in Liming on March Limine to Exclude that evidence on 7
8 8 27, 2024.
2024. On OnApril 2024, the
April 3, 2024, the court
courtheld
heldaaPre-Trial
Pre-Trial Conference,
Conference, which was continued continuedto
to April
April
9 5, 2024.
10 10 continued Pre-Trial Conference held During the continued held on April5,5,2024, on April 2024, the
the court
court granted
granted the
11 11 Defendant's Motion in Limine, without opposition from the Defendant's the People and and subject to evidentiary 12 12
13 13 objections presented objections presentedatattrial. SeePre-Trial trial.See Pre-TrialConference ConferenceMins.
Mins.atat2:2:l9:26PM
19:26PM (Apr. 5,
5, 2024).
2024). In
14 14 addition, the People filed its addition, the its Third Third Amended
Amended Exhibit
Exhibit List,
List, which
which included
included recordings
recordings that
that were
15 15 turned over to the turned over the Defendant Defendant that
that morning.
morning. In his
his argument that this
argument that this exhibit list was was untimely
16 16 filed, filed, the the Defendant
Defendant requested
requested that the
the evidence that was untimely untimely disclosed be excluded at trial.
17 17 is Id. After Afterhearing hearing the
the parties'
parties' argument
argument on
on the issue of the recent disclosures disclosures within
within the
the People's
People's
18
19 19 Third Amended Exhibit List, the the court
court denied
denied its
its admission
admission in the People's People's case-in-chief
case-in-chief but
but
20 20 permitted its admission on on rebuttal
rebuttalsubject
subj etto
to the
theDefendant's
Defendant's introduction of of that
that evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id.
21 B. Jury JurySelection
Selection and
and Trial
Trialbeginning
beginning on
on April
April8,
8, 2024
2024
22 Jury trial Jury trial in
in this
this case
caseoccurred
occurredbetween
betweenApril
April 8, 2024,
2024, through
throughApril
April 15, 2024.However,
15, 2024. However,
23 23 24 on April April15, 15, 2024,
2024, the Defendant made an oral oral motion to dismiss and and an
anoral
oralmotion
motionfor
for mistrial.
24
25 25 See generally See Jury Trial generally Jury Trial Mins.
Mims.(Apr.
(Apr. 15,
15, 2024).
2024). That
That same
sameday,
day,the
thePeople
Peoplefiled
filed aa Motion
Motion for
26 26 Reconsideration regarding the court's exclusion of oftestimony
testimony at
at trial. See Ppl. 's's Mot. Reconsider 27 27 (Apr. 15, 15, 2024).
2024). After
After hearing
hearing the
the parties'
parties' argument
argument on
on the
the motions,
motions, the
the court
court denied
denied
28
Decision Decision &&Order
OrderRe.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v.
v. Akoma, CM0363-22
Page Page 3 of
of 13
reconsideration, theDefendant's grantedthe
reconsideration, granted Motion for Defendant'sMotion and took the for Mistrial, and Defendant's Motion the Defendant's
1
2 to Dismiss under underadvisement.
advisement.Jury
JulyTrial
Trial(Day
(Day6)
6)Mins.@ 10:08:16 -45:13AM Mins. @ 10:08:16 (Apr. 15, - 45:13AM (Apr. 2024);
15, 2024),
3 15, 2024).
(Apr. 15,
2:55:32- 55:56PM. (Apr.
Mins. at 2:55:32
H'rgMims.
Mot. H'rg 4 On April
April 19, 2024, the court issued its Decision 19, 2024, granting the and Order granting
Decision and Defendant's oral the Defendant's
5 motion for mistrial. Decision and See Decision
mistrial. See Order(Motion andOrder for Mistrial)
(Motion for 19, 2024).
Mistrial) (Apr. 19, the 2024). As to the
6 7 Defendant's Defendant's oral oral motion
motion to dismiss, the court denied it for to dismiss, reasons set forth in its Decision for reasons and Decision and
7
8 Order filed filed on
on July
July 15,
15, 2024. See Decision
2024. See Decision and
andOrder
Order(Motion
(Motion to Dismiss) (July 15, 2024).
(July 15,
9 C. Events Events Leading
Leading Up
Up to
to the
the Retrial
10 10 During a Pre-Trial
Pre-TrialConference
Conferenceon
onJuly
July16,
16,2024,
2024, the
the court
court set
set this
this matter continued for aa continued
matter for
11 11 Pre-Trial Conference on Pre-Trial Conference July 18, on July 2024, and
18, 2024, Jury Selection and Jury and Trial Selection and July 19.
Trial for July the 19. However, the
12 12
113 People filed filed two
two Notices
NoticesofofAppeal
Appealwith
withthe
theSupreme Court of
SupremeCourt Guam the
ofGuam the Pre-Trial the day after the
14 14 Conference. The The People's
People'sfirst
firstappeal
appealwas
was based
based on
on the
the court's
court's Decision
Decisionand
and Order
Order granting
granting the
15 15 Defendant's oral oral motion for
for mistrial.
mistrial. See
SeeNotice (July 17, Notice of Appeal (CRA24-016) (July 2024). The 17, 2024).
16 16 second appeal appeal was
was in regards
regards to
to the
the court's Decision and
and Order denying the Defendant's oral 17 17 18 motion motion to dismiss with prejudice.
dismiss with prejudice.See SeeNotice
Noticeof Appeal (CRA24-015) (July of Appeal 17, 2024).
(July 17,
18
19 19 The coin courtand
andthe
the parties
parties acknowledged
acknowledged the
the filing
filingofofboth
bothappeals
appeals during
during the
the continued
continued
20 20 Pre-Trial Pre-TrialConference Conferenceon
onJuly
July18,
18, 2024.
2024. Although
Although the
the court
court initially
initiallystated
stated that no longer retained that it no
21 21 jurisdiction in this case until the appeals appeals were resolved,
resolved, the
the court
court was
was also
also made
made aware
aware that
that the
22 appeals had hadnot
notbeen
beenperfected
perfected at
atthe
thetime
timebased
basedononthe
theDefendant's
Defendant'srepresentations.
representations.See
SeePre-Trial
Pre-Trial
23 23 24 Conference ConferenceMims.
Mins. at
at 4:06:33 -23:53PM
23:53PM (July
(July 18,
18, 2024).
2024). Pursuant to the
Pursuant to theDefendant's Defendant's oral motion
24
25 25 to proceed with with trial as
as scheduled, the court
scheduled, the courtgranted grantedthe
themotion
motionpending
pendingthe
thePeople's
People's perfection
perfection
26 26 of oftheir their appeals. Id.
appeals. Id.
27
28 28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22
Page 4 of
of 13
of trial,
On the day of trial, the
the People
People filed
filed its
its Notice
Notice of Divestiture
Divestiture regarding
regarding the
the court's
coult's order to
1
22 move forward move forward with with Jury
Jury Selection
Selection and
and Trial
Trial on
on July
July 19,
19, 2024, unless the People perfect perfect its appeal
33 before then. See Notice et ofDivestiture
Divestiture (July
(July 19,
19, 2024). That same day, the People filed a Statement Statement
4 . . . . . . . I of of Objectlon Objection under under 7 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§6107
6107 and
and Motlon
MotiontotoDlsquallfy
Disqualify("Statement
("StatementofofOb]ect1on")
Objection") thls
this
5 court. Because court. Because of this, this, the
the matter was
was assigned
assigned to the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III as 6 7 recusaljudge.
judge. See Notice of Assignment (July 30, 2024).
Assignment (July
7
8 While the court was without jurisdiction jurisdiction in
in this
this case
case due
due to the People's appeals appeals and
9 of Objection, the People filed Statement of filed aa Motion Motion for
for Written
Written Orders
Orders on
on July
July 29, 2024. 3 This
29, 2024.3
10 10 court also also issued
issued its
its Answer to
to the Statement of Objection Objection that same day. In response response to the
11 11 People's Motion People's Motionfor for Written
Written Orders,
Orders, the Defendant
Defendant filed
filed his
his Opposition
Opposition on
on August
August 1,
1, 2024.
12 12
13 13 ds too the PPeople's
In rregards eop aappeall of of tthe court's
he cou Decision aand Or r t 's Decis Order denying tthe der denying
14 dismiss, the Guam Supreme Defendant's oral motion to dismiss, Supreme Court Court granted the People's request request to
15 15 withdraw such appeal and dismissed it without prejudice. See Judgment (CRA24-016) (Aug. 12, 12,
16 16 2024).
17 17 Response to this
The People filed its Response this court's Answer to the Statement of Objection on Statement of
18 18
19 19 August 14, 2024. 4 On 14, 2024.4 On August 29, 2024, the Honorable Albelto the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III issued his
20 20 Decision and Order denying the Office of the the Attorney General
General of
of Guam's ("OAG") Statement Statement
21 of Objection and Motion to of to Disqualify. See Decision and Order Order (Aug. 29, 2024). On September 22 24, 2024, the People filed filed aa Memorandum
Memorandum regarding
regarding the
the status
status of
of the
the remaining
remaining appeal
appeal of
of this
this
23 24 24 court's Decision court's Decision and and Order
Order granting the Defendant's oral motion Defendant's oral motion for for mistrial.
25
26
27 3 While the People 3 While the People filed an CVR 7.1 7.1 Form regarding regarding Ex Ex Parte
Parte Relief
Reliefon
onthis
this motion,
motion, the
the court
court was
was still
still without
without
28 28 jurisdiction to entertain it.
jurisdiction it. 4 The 4 The People also tiled filed an
an Amended
Amended Response later that thatday.
day.See
SeeAmended
AmendedPpl's
Ppl's Response
Response (Aug.
(Aug. 14,
14, 2024).
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Aroma,
Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 5 of
of 13
On November
November 21, 2024, the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court issued
issued aaJudgment
Judgment denying
denying the
the People's
People's
1
2 appellate Motion for Limited Remand, and dismissing the appellate the appeal.
appeal. See Judgment
Judgment (CRA24-015)
(CRA24-015)
3 (Nov. 21, 2024).
2024). Accompanying
Accompanying the Judgment Judgment was the Guam Supreme Court's Order conveying 4 the reasons for the denial and dismissal. See Order (CRA24-015) (Nov. 21, 2024).
5 D. D. Dismissal
Dismissalof
ofthe
the Case
Case
6
On December
December 10,
10, 2024, the
the People
People filed a Memorandum Supporting People of Supporting People of Guam's 7
8 Motion to Dismiss without Motion in the Interest without Prejudice in Interest of of Justice ("Motion to Dismiss"). The court 9 held held a Status Hearing Hearing on December
December 19, heard arguments on the Motion to Dismiss.
19, 2024, where it heard Dismiss.
10 Ultimately, the Ultimately, the court court dismissed
dismissed this
this case against the Defendant Defendant and
and allowed
allowed the
the parties
parties to file their
111
respective briefs on the issue respective briefs issue of of dismissal
dismissal with
with or
or without
without prejudice.
prejudice. The
The court
court subsequently
subsequently
12 12
13 issued its Order of Dismissal that that same
same day.
day. The
The Defendant filed his Response to the Motion to
14 14 Dismiss ("Response") on on December
December 26, 2024. 5 The People then filed its Reply to the Response 26, 2024.5
15 15 December 31, on December 2024. 6 31, 2024.6
16 16 On January 9, 2025,
2025, the
the court
court held
held a Status
Status Hearing
Hearing where
where it addressed
addressed the parties' briefs 17 17 on the issue of of dismissal with prejudice. After hearing the parties' argument, the court took the 18
19 19 matter under advisement.
20 \\ 21 \\ 22
23
24 55 Although Although the Notice Notice of Motion scheduled the Opposition Brief Brief due date for December December 24, 2024, the Superior Court of of Guam Guam waswas closed
closed due
due to
to the
the Christmas Eve holiday. Guam Rule of of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 6(a)(l)(C)
25 states that"[ "[w]hen the period is stated in in days days or a longer unit ofof time...
... include
include the
the last
last day
day of
ofthe
the period,
period, but
but ifif itit is
a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing filing of a paper in court, a day on which 26 26 weather weather oror other conditions have made made the office office of
of the clerk
clerk of
of the Superior Court
Court inaccessible, the period continues to runs until the end of the next day which is until the is not not one
one of
ofthe
the aforementioned
aforementioned days."
days." Therefore,
Therefore, the Defendant's 27 27 Response was timely filed.filed.
66 Although Although thethe Notice Notice of Motion scheduled the Reply Brief Brief due date for December December 21, 21, 2024, the court recognizes 28 28 clerical error this as a clerical error meant meant toto read
read as
as "December
"December 31,l, 2024"
2024" when
when considering that the Reply Reply Brief would have been due before the Opposition Brief. Therefore, Therefore, the
the People's
People's Reply was timely filed.
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 6 of
of 13
DISCUSSION
l
2 2 A.
A. Defendant DefendantAkoma's
Akoma'sStatutory
StatutoryRight
Rightto
toSpeedy
Speedy Trial
Trial was
was violated under 88 G.C.A.
violated under G.C.A. §§ 80.60.
3
Without ruling on the issue of Without of prejudice, the court sue sua sponge
sponte dismissed
dismissed this
this case pursuant
4
5 to 8 GCA to 8 80.60 and GCA §§ 80.60 and alternatively alternatively 88 GCA
GCA §§ 80.70(b).
80.70(b). Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 88 GCA
GCA §§ 80.60, the court
80.60, the court shall
shall
6 dismiss a criminal action for failure failure to
to commence
commence trial
trial of
of a defendant
defendant within
within sixty
sixty (60)
(60) days after
7 arraignment unless there is good cause for failure failure to
to commence
commence the trial within the sixty-day time 8 frame. Under 88 GCA frame. Under GCA §§ 80.70(b), "[i]fthere is 80.70(b), "[i]fthere is unnecessary unnecessary delay
delay in
in bringing
bringing aa defendant
defendant to
to trial,
trial,
9
10 on its
the court, on its own own motion,
motion, may
may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint." ea
11 II In its Reply, the People People argue
argue that
that under
under the
the Guam
GuamSupreme
SupremeCou1"t's
Court's Ruling in People v, v.
12 Gutierrez, Gutierrez, "the basis basis of
of dismissal
dismissal with prejudice
prejudice cannot
cannot be satisfied."
satisfied." Ppl.'s
Ppl. Reply (Dec.
(Dec. 31,
31,
13 2024). They specifically cited to to the
the holding in Gutierrez that trial trial courts are
are not authorized "to
14
sua sponge sue sponte dismiss indictments indictments with
with prejudice." People
prejudice." Peopl v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 e v. 19129.
1]29. While
While
15 15
16 16 the People the People sta te tha state that this
this count
court dismissed this case's compla dismissed this complaint with pr ejudice without prejudice without a
17 subsequent complaint being subsequent complaint being filed, filed, this
this is
is not the case.
case. In
In its
its Order
Order for
for Dismissal,
Dismissal, the
the court
court
18 dismissed dismissed this this case from the bench but reserved its ruling on prejudice until both parties submitted submitted
19 19 the issue.
briefs on the issue. See Dismissal (Dec. 19, See Order for Dismissal 19, 2024).
2024). Therefore,
Therefore, the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme
20 Court's ruling in Gutierrez does not apply in this case.
21
22 Regarding Regarding the failure to commence commence this retrial within the remaining time left on the speedy speedy
23 trial clock, clock, the
the court
court found
found no
no good cause for why this trial this case case was
was not
not brought
brought to
to retrial
retrial within
24 . . . . o . .
whatever time remained whatever time remained on on the speedy trial
trial clock. Among
Amongits
its reasons
reasons for
for dismissing
dismissing the
the case,
case, the
25 court found unnecessary delay in bringing the Defendant's Defendant's case
case to
to retrial
retrial after the People waited 26
27 until the day of of the
the retrial
retrial to file its Statement of of Objection
Objection against
against this court,
court; and after it had
27
28 already filed two Notices of Appeal on the previous day.
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 7 of
of 13
The Guam
Guam Supreme Court acknowledged Supreme Court acknowledged that that delays
delays for
for the
the benefit of
of the
the defendant
defendant
1
2 constitute as good constitute as cause for good cause for speedy
speedy trial
trial purposes,
purposes, such
suchas
astolling
tolling of
of the
the speedy
speedy trial
trial clock. See
3 Ungacta v.
v. Superior
Superior Court of
of Guam,
Guam, 2013 Guam 29 (arguing that, "delays "delays caused by, or for the caused by,
4 4 benefit benefit of ofthe
the defendant
defendant constitute
constitute good
good cause for
for speedy
speedy trial
trial purposes.").
purposes."). Because
Because the
the Statement
Statement
5 of ofObjection Objection is is not
not a motion filed
filed for
for the
the Defendant's
Defendant's benefit,
benefit, the
the time would
would not have been tolled tolled
6
7 pending the Decision Decision and Order on
onthe
theStatement
Statementof
of Objection.
Objection. When the
the Statement
Statementof
of Objection
Objection
8 8 was filed, there there was still time
time remaining
remaining on the Defendant's speedy trial trial clock to bring a retrial.
9 9 However, However, the the Decision
Decision and Order
Order Denying
Denying the
theOAG's
OAG's Statement of Objection was Statement of was filed filed nine
nine (9)
(9)
10 10 days after the the Defendant's speedy trial clock clock already
already expired.
expired. Because
Because of
of this,
this, speedy
speedy trial was
11 1
violated under violated G.C.A. §§ 80.60.
under 8 G.C.A. 80.60. The The court
court will
willnow
nowexplicate itsreasons explicateits to dismiss reasons to dismiss this
this case with
case with
12 12
13 13 prejudice.
prejudice.
14 B. The TheFederal
FederalSpeedy
SpeedyTrial
TrialAct
ActFactors
Factorsweigh
weighin
in favor
favor of
ofdismissal
dismissal with prejudice.
15 Where a defendant's statutoryright defendant's statutory righttotospeedy speedytrial
trialisisviolated,
violated, "[t]he
"[t]he issue
issue of
of whether
whether the
16 16 case should be be dismissed
dismissed with
with or without prejudice should be decided in the first instance by the 17 17 18 trial court."
court." People
Peoplev. Corpuz, 2019 Guam 1, ,r1118 v. Corpuz, (quotingNicholson 18 (quoting Nicholson v. Superior Court (People), v. Superior (People), 18
19 19 2007 Guam 99 ,r1]29)
2007 Guam 29)(Mar.
(Mar. 22,
22, 2019).
2019). While the
the Guam
Guam Supreme has "never Supreme Court has "never ruled that that aa
20 speedy trial violation violationrequires
requires an
an automatic dismissal
dismissal with prejudice...
... Guam's
Guam's speedy
20 speedy trial trial statute
statute
21 does not contain aa default defaultpresumption
presumptionone
oneway
wayor
orthe
theother-making
other-making both
both available to the trial 22 22 cou1"r." Id (quoting court." Id. Aron in, 2014 (quotingPeople v.v. Aromin, 2014 Guam Guam 33 111114, 20-21,see ,r,r 14, 20-21; see also8 8GCA also GCA§§80.60
80.60(2005)).
(2005)).
23
The Guam Guam Supreme Court has has further
further held
held that
thatthe
the trial
trial courts must
mustconsider
considerthe
thefederal
federal Speedy
24
25 Trial Act Actfactors
factors when
when determining
determining whether
whether to
to dismiss
dismiss aa case with or without prejudice. Aron in, Aromin,
26 26 2014 Guam 3, ,r 21.
Gu3m3,1121.
27 27
28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People People v.
v. Akoma,
Akoma, CM0363-22
CM0363-22
Page 8 of
of 13
i
The federal
federal Speedy
Speedy Trial Act
Actrequires
requires the
the court consider the following factors to consider
court to and factors and
1
2 2 determine whetherthey determine whether in favor weigh in
theyweigh dismissal with prejudice favor of dismissal in this prejudice in case: "(1)
this case: the
"(1) the
3 seriousness of the seriousness of the offense;
offense, (2)
(2)the
the facts
facts and dismissal;
circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal, and circumstances
4 . . . . . . .
the impact of aa reprosecutlon and (3) the of the reprosecution of administrationof the administration Aromin, 2014 Guam justice." Aron ofjustlce." ,i Guam 33 1]
5 21.
6
7 (1) The
TheSeriousness of the Offense Seriousness of
8 When analyzing whether the seriousnessof the seriousness of the
the offense favors dismissal dismissal with prejudice,
9 9 the trial court's court's interpretation recognizes that interpretation recognizes that "the "the more
more serious the offense, serious the offense, the
the more
more weight
10 should be given to dismissal without prejudice."
dismissal without Aromin, prejudice." Aron ,i (citing in, 1]23 (citing United 25 Clymer, 25 v. Clymer,
States v.
UnitedStates
111
F.3d 824, 831 F.3d Cir. 1994)). "[W]here 831 (9th Cir. crimecharged thecrime
"[W]here the serious, the chargedisisserious, sanction of the sanction dismissal of dismissal
12 12
13 13 with prejudice should should ordinarily
ordinarily be
be imposed
imposedonly
only for
for serious
serious delay."
delay."Corpuz, ,i 24 (quoting Corpuz, 2019 1124 (quoting
14 14 Simmons, 786 F.2d 479,485 v. Simmons,
States v.
United States United (ad Cir. 1986)).
485 (2d
15 15 By example
example and
and comparison
comparison to
to felony
felonycharges,
charges, misdemeanor
misdemeanor charges
charges are
are generally
generally
16 16 deemed less serious.
serious. For instance, the nature instance, the of an nature of an assault may be more serious assault may serious than than a theft
17 17 because of the bodily bodily injury.
injury.But
Butanother
another may
may view
viewthe
thepunishments
punishments available
availablefor
foran
an assault
assault versus
18 18
19 19 a theft as as a stronger indicator of aa charge's charge's seriousness.
seriousness. In
In this
this case,
case, the Defendant
Defendant is charged
charged
20 with two counts of with of Fourth FourthDegree
Degree Criminal
Criminal Sexual
Sexual Conduct
Conduct(As
(As a Misdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). For
For this
thisoffense,
offense,
21 the Defendant faced no Defendant faced no more
more than
than one
one ((1)
1) year of
ofincarceration
incarceration and maximum fine and a maximum fine of one one
22
7
thousand dollars ($1,000). thousand dollars ($1,000).7 Sincethe Since thefiling
filing of
of the
the Magistrate's was before this matter was
Magistrate's Complaint, this before 23 23 24 the court for approximately three (3) years years before
beforethe
thecourt
court dismissed
dismissed itit on
on the
the bench.
bench.
24
25 25
26 26
27
28 28 7 7 See 99G.C.A. See G.C.A. § 25.30(b), 25.30(b); see also 9 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§
§§ 80.34
80.34 & 80.50.
80.50.
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudicein
inthe
the Interest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Aroma,
Akoma, CM0363-22
CM0363-22
Page9 of
of13
After evaluating After evaluating the
the seriousness
seriousness of
of this
this misdemeanor
misdemeanor charge,
charge, the court agrees with the 1
2 thatthis Defendant that thisfactor factorweighs
weighsin
infavor
favor of
of dismissal
dismissal with
wit prejudice.
prejudice.Thus,
Thus,the
the court
court finds
finds that
that
3 the seriousness of the seriousness of theoffenses offenses charged
chargedweigh
weigh in
in favor of
ofdismissal with prejudice.
dismissal with
4 (2) The
TheFacts
Facts and
and Circumstances
Circumstances of
ofthe
the case
case which led to the dismissal dismissal
5 When looldng When lookingat
at the
the facts
facts and
and circumstances of the case which led to dismissal, trial courts 6
7 have considered: bad faith by the Government or or the
the court
court in
in causing the delay;
delay, actual
actual prejudice
7
8 to the the defendant, defendant; unavailability of ofwitnesses,
witnesses; the
the disappearance or deterioration of exculpatory disappearance or exculpatory
9 evidence, evidence; whether whether the defendant was was in
in confinement
confinement while awaiting the initiation initiation of
ofthe
the case.
case. See
10 . . .a .
Aromin Aron ,r in atat1[ 24. "While notdlsposltlve "Whlle not dispositiveunde under this se
r this second factor, the cond factor, also eevaluates whether court also
the court whe 11 government's conduct
the court's or government's conduct rises rises to
to the
the level of
of 'something
'something more
more than
than an
an isolated
isolated
12 12
13 unwitting violation,' such as unwitting violation,' asaafinding findingof
of'bad
'badfaith'
faith'or
oraa'pattern
'patternofofneglect."'
neglect."'Id.
Id (quoting
quoting United
United
as
14 14 States States v.v. Taylor, Taylor, 487 U.S.
U.S. 326,
326, 339
339 (1988))."
(1988))
15 15 An An "[i]nordinate
"[i]nordinate delay
delay between
between public
public charge
charge and trial"
trial" may (1) prejudice
prejudice "a
"a defense
defense on
16 16 the merits"-such merits"-such as asthrough
through the
the deterioration
deterioration of
ofcrucial
crucial evidence, unavailability of ofwitnesses,
witnesses, or
17 17 subversion of the subversion of thedefendant's defendant'sability
abilitytotoprepare
preparefor
fortrial-or
trial-or (2)
(2) seriously
seriously prejudice
prejudice "defendant's
18 18
19 19 liberty, ...
liberty, . .. disrupt disrupt his
his employment, drain his financial resources, resources, curtail
curtailhis
his associations,
associations,subj act
subject
20 20 obloquy, and create him to public obloquy, create anxiety anxiety in him,his family and his friends."
and his friends."Corpuz ,r 25; United Corpuz 1]25,
21 v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 82 (ad States v. (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Taylor, 487 U.S. at 340-41)
340-41) (explaining
22 22 prejudice to defendant may may come
come in
in trial
trial prejudice
prejudice or non-trial
non-trial prejudice);
prejudice), Aron
Aromin, 2014 Guam 3
23 23
24 24 ,r 24 mentioning8 examples (mentioning examples of Preludice prejudice
J such
such as
as witness
witness unavailabilityY , deterioration unavailability, deterioration of
25 exculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence, or curtailment of defendant's liberty).
curtailment of liberty).
26 26 As mentioned As mentioned earlier,
earlier, the
the court
court scheduled
scheduled retrial during
during a Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial COnference
Conference that
that was
27 27 heard three days heard three days before before that retrial date.
that retrial date. Despite Despite the
the People taking
taking no issue
issue with
with this
this court
court
28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v. Akoma,
Aroma, CM0363-22
CM0363-22
Page 10
JO of
of 13
over the original
presiding over original trial, trial, it filed its Statement of of Objection
Objection against
against this court on the day of of
1
2 retrial, July 19, 19, 2024.
2024. The
The court
court notes
notes that
that during
during this
this time,
time, the
the same
same Statement
Statement of Objection was
3 of other criminal cases assigned to this court.
filed in a multitude of court. Although Although the People elected to 4 withdraw the same withdraw the same Statement Statement of
of Objection in some
Objection in some of
of this
this court's
court'scases,
cases, Defendant Akoma's case Akorna's case
5 of the few
was one of few cases cases where
where the
the People
People awaited
awaited disposition
disposition of
of the
the Statement
Statement of
of Objection
Objection
6
7 through a recusal recusal judge's
judge's Decision and Order.
8 Another circumstance that led to the dismissal of of the case
case was the
the unavailability
unavailability of
of the
9 victim as a primary material witness needed for for the
the retrial.
retrial. On September
September 19,
19, 2024,
2024, the court
court
10 10 received the victim's received victim's public public statement
statement regarding
regarding her
her unwillingness
unwillingness to
to testify again and experience 11 throughout this throughout this whole whole case.
case. In addition,
addition, the
the Defendant cited to aa public public article
article that
that included
included
12 12
13 1 statements from the Attorney General regarding this case, which was still active at the time the
14 14 article went live online. See article See Def. 26, 2024).
Def.'s Response (Dec. 26, 15 Thus, regarding
regarding whether
whether the
the People's
People's conduct
conduct rises to the level of "something more than 16 16 an isolated unwitting violation,"
violation," the
the court
court views
views the People's conduct conduct here
here as
as such
such aa violation.
17 17 facts and circumstances of this case, Therefore, the court finds that the facts case, which led to dismissal, 18 18
19 19 weigh in favor of of dismissal with prejudice.
20 (3) The The impact
impact of
ofaa reprosecution
reprosecution on the administration of of justice
21 "The "The Court should also look to the the likelihood of
of repeated violations and whether potential 22 administrative changes are prompted by the the violation."
violation." Bert, 814 F.3d at 86.
86. While
While not as serious
23 23
24 24 of aa sanction of sanction as as dismissal
dismissal with prejudice, prejudice, dismissal without prejudice would still still require the
25 25 People to obtain a new new indictment
indictment and potentially potentially face dismissal dismissal on statute of limitations grounds.
26 ,r 27 (quoting Taylor,
Corpuz11 Corpuz Taylor, 487 U.S. at 342).
27
28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v.
v. Akoma,
Aroma, CM0363-22 Page 11
11 of
of 13
The court notes
notes the
theAttorney
AttorneyGeneral's
General's "professional
"professional opinion that that aanew
new trial
trialisis likely
likely to
1
2 end in an acquittal."
acquittal." Memo.
Memo. Supporting PpL's Mot. Dismiss Supporting Ppl.'s Dismiss (Dec. 10, 10, 2024).
2024). In
In this
this case,
case, re-
3 prosecuting this case case would
would negatively
negatively impact
impact the
the administration of justice when when considering the
4 4 victim's publicized publicized unwillingness
unwillingness to
to go forward
fmward with
with aa retrial
retrial and
and the
the Attorney
Attorney General's
General's
5 professional professional opinion opinionshould
shouldthe
the Defendant
Defendant be
be reindicted
reindicted on
on the
the same charges.
charges. Therefore, the
the court
6 6
finds that the impact that the impact of
of the prosecution on
the reprosecution on the
the administration
administrationof
ofjustice
justiceweighs
weighsin
in favor
favor of
7
8 dismissal with with prejudice.
9 Because Because all three factors weigh in three factors in favor favor of
ofdismissal
dismissalwith
withprejudice,
prejudice,the
the court
court holds
holds that
that
10 10 . . . . .
this case be dismissed dlsmlssed with for the wlth prejudice for the reasons set forth above.
II \\ 12 12
113 \\
14 14 \\ \\
15 \\ 16 16 \\ \\ 17 17 \\ 18 18
19 19 \\\
20 20 \\ \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 24 24 \\
25 \\
26 26 \\ 27 27 \\ 28
Decision Decision &&Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People's Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v.
v. Akoma, CM0363-22
CM0363-22
Page 12 of 13
12 of 13
CONCLUSION
1
2 For the reasons above, the court hereby DENIES the People's Motion to Dismiss without People's Motion
3 Prejudice. The court further orders this case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4
5 No further proceeding is scheduled scheduled before
before this
this court.
6
~ 9 ApR U39 2025
APR 2[]25
7 this SO ORDERED this
-----------
.
8
9 -/,·~ -
.~~~~~
10 =@l
11 11
12 12 HONORABLE L E ALBERTO-E-.
i i ' 6 E . TOLENTINO
EN
Superior Court of Guam
Judge, Superior
13 13
14
15 15
16
17
18
19
20 20
21
22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26
27
28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re.
Re. People's
People'sMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissWithout
WithoutPrejudice
Prejudiceininthe
theInterest
Interest of
ofJustice
Justice
People v.
v. Akoma,
Aroma, CM0363-22 Page 13
13 of
of 13