People v. Anderson, C.

CourtSuperior Court of Guam
DecidedSeptember 6, 2019
DocketCF0380-17
StatusUnknown

This text of People v. Anderson, C. (People v. Anderson, C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Anderson, C., (superctguam 2019).

Opinion

I

FILET SUPERIBR COURT GF QUAH 1 20l9SEP"i PH l;.l»5 2 .ART 3 B 4

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Case No. CF0380-17 8 ) ) 9 Plaintiff, ) ) 10 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) ) CALVIN JESUS ANDERSON, ) DOB: 12/18/1994 ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 )

15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on May 1, 2019 for a

:Z restitution hearing. Defendant Calvin Anderson ("Defendant") appeared with Alternate Public

19 Defender Lisa Lorig. The People of Guam are represented by Assistant Attorney General Sean

20 Brown. After considering the testimony and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law,

21 the Court now issues its Decision and Order granting the People's Petition for Restitution. 22 BACKGROUND 23 24 On July 3, 2019 a grand jury returned an indictment against the Defendant charging him

25 with Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony) with a Special Allegation: Deadly Weapon

26 Used in a Felony, Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) with a Special Allegation:

27 Deadly Weapon Used in a Felony, Aggravated Assault (as a Third Degree Felony) with a 28 Decision and Order CF0380-17, People v. Anderson

Special Allegation: Deadly Weapon Used in a Felony, Assault (as a Misdemeanor), and, 1

2 Recldess Conduct (as a Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jul. 3, 2017). On January 30, 2019 the

3 Defendant pled guilty to Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) with the Special 4 Allegation: Deadly Weapon Used in a Felony pursuant to a plea agreement. (Minute Entry, Jan. 5 30, 2019). As a condition of the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to be held fully liable in 6

restitution to the victim, Sammy Kette, in an amount to be determined at a later restitution 7

8 hearing. (Plea Agreement at 5). On May 1, 2019, the Court held a restitution hearing. (Minute

9 Entry, May l, 2019). At the hearing the Court gave the People until May 10 to submit 10 additional documentation related to a billing from Guam Specialist Group, and stated that it 11 would take the matter under advisement the following business day and provide the Defendant 12

13 with an additional opportunity to question the victim about any submitted documentation, if

14 necessary. Id. The people did not submit any further documentation, and the Court

15 subsequently took the matter under advisement. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Guam's statutes provide that a person convicted of a crime may be ordered to pay restitution in 18

19 the amount of:

20 (a) Ten Thousand Dollars ($l0,000.00), when the conviction is of a felony in the first or second degree, 21 (e) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain to the offender or loss 22 to the victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender. In such case the court shall make a finding as to the amount of the gain or loss, and 23 if the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such a finding the court may conduct a hearing upon the issue. For purposes of this Section, the term 24 "gain" means the amount of money or the value of the property derived by the 25 offender and the term "loss" means the amount of value separated from the victim, 26

27 8 GCA § 80.50. This means that the court may order the Defendant to pay restitution up to ten 28 thousand dollars without any specific findings, but must make findings for any higher amount,

Page 2 of 6 l I I l III lillI l l

Decision and Order CF0380-17, People v. Anderson

not to exceed double the loss of the victim or gain of the Defendant. People v. Mello, 2008 1

2 Guam 23

3 dollars ($39,335.89) in restitution for the victim's losses, requiring the Court to make specific 4 findings regarding those losses if it wishes to order restitution in that amount. Id. The People 5 bear the burden of proving losses by the victim by a preponderance of the evidence. See United 6

States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 556 (9th Cir. 2008). Losses incurred by the victim must be 7

8 "adequately proven by competent evidence". People v. Faisal, 2018 Guam 26 'll 19.

9 At the hearing, the victim testified that the Defendant shot him on December 14, 201.6 10 and as a result of his gunshot injuries was hospitalized at Guam Memorial Hospital ("GMH") 11 for a period of about two weeks. (Court Recording at 3:47:30, May 1, 2019). The Defendant's 12

13 mother then testified to the particulars of the billing her son received as a result of his

14 hospitalization and outpatient treatment. Id. at 3:53:30-4:21:00. The Court entered a number of

15 exhibits which were already included in the People's Submission of Summary Report (Minute 16 Entry, May l., 2019). At the heart of this restitution matter are four specific billings: 17 1. A billing statement from GMH for services rendered between December 15 through 18 December 21, 2016 in the amount of $28,724.30. 19 2. A billing statement from GMH for services rendered between December 14 through December 15, 2016 in the amount of $5,639.78. 20 3. A Patient History .- Summary from Guam Specialist Group billing $4,932.27. 4. Receipts from the Treasurer of Guam and Mega Drug 1 in the amounts of $15.00, 21 $10.50, and $5.95. 22 (Submission of Summary Report at 3-6). 23

The Court finds that the People have sustained their burden of showing the victim's 24

25 losses with regard to billings one and two. The victim's mother testified that she did not ask for

26 any specific procedures to be done while her son was being treated for his gunshot wound. She 27 also testified that despite carrying health insurance, the insurance company refused to pay for 28

Page 3 of 6 Decision and Order CF0380-17, People v. Anderson

the services rendered by GMH. (Court Recording at 3:55:00), (See Submission of Summary 1

2 Report at 5-6) (stating that the balance is not covered by Medical Insurance Plan ("MIP")). The

3 People also provided a detailed breakdown of the services rendered by GMH. Id. at 7-18. After 4 reviewing the records, the Court is satisfied that the services billed were necessary and related to 5 the Defendant's shooting of the victim in the abdominal area, and that the victim had intended 6

for insurance to cover the costs of treatment mitigating the amount of restitution, but was unable 7

8 to do so. Id.

9 Likewise, the Court finds the People have sustained their burden with regard to the 10 receipts from Mega Drug l and the Treasurer of Guam. The victim's mother testified that the 11 receipt from the Treasurer of Guam was for the cost of filing a police report. (Court Recording 12

13 at 4:07:00). She also testified that the receipts from Mega Drug were. for painldllers her son

14 needed during his treatment. (Id. at 4:0l:00). The mother testified that she incurred these

15 expenses out of pocket. Id. The Court agrees that these items were necessary for the victim's 16 treatment and to initiate an investigation into the matter. 17

However, the Court's biggest concern is with the billing related to Guam Specialist 18

19 Group. The People submitted only a summary report of the billing including a lump sum of

20 $4,394.13 and two sums for Doctors Medina and Femur in the amounts of $200.46 and $337.68. 21 (Submission of Summary Report at 4). The Report states that the items were billed on April 30, 22 2017 with a service date of December 15, 2016-the same time the victim was receiving 23

services at GMH. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Waknine
543 F.3d 546 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Sohbu Guam Development Co. v. Palting
2 Guam 23 (Superior Court of Guam, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Anderson, C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anderson-c-superctguam-2019.