People v. Albert

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 21, 2013
• Docket: CM1170-12
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4 THE PEOPLE OF GUAlVI, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM1170- 5 ) 6 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 ) ON MOTION TO DISMISS ) 8 RIEV OPONE ALBERT, ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ) 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on July 9, 14 2013 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The People were represented by Assistant

15 Attorney General James Collins. Defendant Riev Albert was represented by

16 Attorney Terrance Long. After a hearing, the matter was taken under advisement.

17 The Court now issues its Decision and Order. BACKGROUND 18 On May 28,2013 Defendant Albert filed his Motion to Dismiss. In his 19 memorandum, he argues in favor of dismissal with prejudice as there was a delay in 20 arraigning him in violation of Rasauo II. 1 The record reflects that the Complaint in 21 this matter was filed on December 26, 2012. Albert wasn't arraigned until 22 February 27, 2013; 63 days after the filing of the Complaint. For the reasons set 23 forth below, this Court shall deny the motion. 24 DISCUSSION 25 "An arraignment is the first or preliminary step in the progress of a trial and 26 occurs in the early stages of the proceedings. At arraignment, a defendant is read 27

1 28 People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. Decision and Order Case No. CMII70-12

the charges of the complaint, called to answer the accusation contained in the 2 complaint, and is provided a copy of the complaint before taking a plea." People v. 3 Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ,! 20. "The defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the 4 indictment or information is filed or after the complaint is filed where prosecution 5 by complaint is required." 8 G.C.A. § 60.10.

6 The Supreme Court of Guam has held that "unless good cause is shown, a

7 complaint shall be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned within

8 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo II, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 14. The Supreme Court also emphasized that "[t]he issue of whether or not the case should 9 be dismissed with or without prejudice should be decided in the first instance by the 10 trial court." 2011 Guam 14 ,[ 16. II Defendant, in his motion, inaccurately calculates the date of his arraignment 12 as being 91 days after the Complaint. In actuality, the arraignment took place on 13 February 27, 2013, 63 days after the filing of the complaint. On its face, this is in 14 violation of the rule announced in Rasauo II. However, good cause for the delay is 15 present. Defendant previously appeared on February 20, 2013 before the 16 Magistrate Judge. Defendant had yet to consult with his attorney for this matter. 17 The Judge granted him one week's time to consult with his attorney. This Court 18 finds good cause for the delay in arraignment. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby 21 DENIED. This matter is set for Trial Setting on November 5, 2013 at 2:00p.m. 22

24 It is SO ORDERED this 21st day of Oct 25

27 HONORABLE AL ORENA,III 28 Presiding Judge, t of Guam