People v. Akwinas

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case NQ. CM2?3- }~'J {

4 )

)

5 v. )

DECISION AND ORDER

) re: Motion to Dismiss 6 JUSTIN AKWINAS, )

7 )

Defendant. )

8

9

10 INTRODUCTION

11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on April 24, 2012.

12 The People are represented by Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins. The Defendant is 13 represented by Suresh Sampath. After considering the matter presented, the Court issues the 14 following decision and order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss because the People 15

16 have not shown good cause for delay in the arraignment of the Defendant.

17 BACKGROUND 18 On March 31, 2010, a complaint was filed which charged the Defendant with Assault 19 by Mutual Combat (As a Misdemeanor), Disorderly Conduct (As a Violation), and Public 20 Drunkenness (As a Violation). On April 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the 21

22 complaint arguing he was not promptly arraigned following the People's complaint against

23 him. 24 DISCUSSION

25 Under Guam law, a "defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the indictment or 26 information is filed or after the complaint is filed where prosecution by complaint is required 27

28 by § 1.15." 8 GCA § 60.10(a). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam held, "unless good

Page lof4

cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned 2 within sixty (60) days of the filing of the complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 14 3 ("Rasauo 11"). The Court also held this "standard continues to require a case by case analysis 4

5 of whether or not the 'specific circumstance' of any given case shows good cause for delay."

6 Id.

7 The Defendant argues the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because he was 8 arraigned approximately twenty (20) months after the complaint was filed and there is no 9 showing of "good cause" for the delay. However, the People argue the following: (1) the 10

II judicial process accounted for the delay which should constitute "good cause"; (2) the

12 Defendant's failure to appear on the date of the Summons further pushed back the actual 13 arraignment date; and (3) the Defendant needed time to consult with his attorney.

14 Here, the complaint was filed March 31, 2010 and a Summons was issued the same day 15 for an arraignment scheduled for June 30, 2010. The Court notes, the time between the 16

]7 complaint being filed and the initial arraignment date was approximately ninety (90) days, 30

18 days over the 60-day requirement required by Rasauo 11 The 60-day speedy arraignment 19 deadline set by the Supreme Court of Guam was violated because the Defendant was not 20 promptly arraigned within the 60-day limit. Furthermore, similar to an alleged violation of 21

22 speedy trial rights, the burden rests with the People to prove that there is good cause to extend

23 the period of arraignment beyond the 60-day rule. State v. Feldhacker, 663 N.W.2d 143, 146 24 (Neb. App. 2003). The arraignment issue is analogous to the speedy trial issue, in the instant 25 case, because there must be "good cause" to go beyond the 60-day rule.

26 The People maintain that once a request for a sununons is presented the People retain no 27

28 control over the court's decision about when to calendar the date on which a defendant is to

Page 2 of4

return to court. Thus, the People advocate that any delay attributed to the court's calendaring of 2 an arraignment should be found to be good cause and not cause the case to be dismissed 3 pursuant to Rasauo II. Guam's Supreme Court however makes it clear that it intended the court 4 and its officers to be subject to the prompt arraignment rule put forth in Rasauo II. Rasauo, 2011 5

6 Guam 14 ~ 12; see also 8 GCA § 80.50(a) (It shall be the duty of all court and judicial officers

7 to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice). 8 Since the onus is on all judicial officers, in addition to the prosecuting attorneys, to ensure that a 9 defendant is promptly arraigned, the Court holds that the delay created by the Court scheduling 10

11 the arraignment date after more than sixty (60) days had passed from the filing of the Complaint

12 is not good cause. The Defendant was not promptly arraigned; therefore, this case must be 13 dismissed. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14.

14 The Court finds that dismissal should be with prejudice. The Supreme Court of Guam 15 applied the statutory speedy trial time period in Rasauo II. This is significant because when a 16

17 Defendant's right to a speedy trial is violated the action against that Defendant is dismissed

18 with prejudice. It is not unreasonable to apply the same rule in the instant case. 19 Furthermore, similar to Rasauo II where the Defendant, "sought pre-trial relief when he 20 filed a motion to dismiss before the trial court ... [the Defendant is] not required to show 21 prejudice from the delay." 2011 Guam 14 ~ 15. Thus, the Defendant is not required to show that 22

23 he was prejudiced from the delay in the instant case because the case is in pre-trial stage. The

24 Court reiterates that it is the duty of all courts and judicial officers (including the Prosecution) 25 to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree. See 8 GCA § 80.50(a). Therefore, the Court 26 finds that because (1) speedy trial violations result in dismissal with prejudice; (2) the 27

28

Page 3 of4

Defendant does not have to show prejudice from the delay; and (3) it was the duty of all court 2 and judicial officers to promptly arraign the Defendant, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

3 CONCLUSION

4 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the People have not shown good cause for 5

6 the delay of the Defendant's arraignment. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's motion to

7 dismiss with prejudice. 8

~

9 SO ORDERED, this 7;1 day of 2012.

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page4of4