People v. Babauta

Opinion

. i fsagsl S 1

2 202~ DEC 2B2,1, -3 PF? DEC -3 PM 2: 2: GD 00 Q* gm T?`?!" €* ems gr 1? ~"§" wl.Ji"*E..i"i2U@"*i ~+"Ji..,E i, 3 .F*" 3 F* ea 1 ?: :E ) *z G s"1z"E§ "' \ 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 )) CRIMINAL CASENO. CRJMINAL CASE no. CF0680-23 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE GUAM, ) Report No. GPD Report No. 23-03172 23-03172 )) 8 vs. )) )) 9 DECISION DECISION & ORDER )) RE. DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION TO 10 10 JORDAN MICHAEL BABAUTA, )) DISMISS DOB: 03/15/1991 03/15/1991 )) 11 11 )) )) 12 ) Defendant. ________________ ) )) 13 13

14 14 This matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto E. Tolentino Tolentino on on September September 5, 5, 2024, 2024, for aa 15 15 Motion Motion Hearing. Hearing. Defendant JordanMichael Defendant Jordan MichaelBabauta Babita ("Defendant") ("Defendant")was waspresent present with with counsel counsel 16 16 Attorney Vanessa Williams. Williams. Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Sean Sean Brown Brown was was present present for the People 17 17

18 of ofGuam Guam ("People"). ("People").During Duringthe thehearing, hearing,the the court court addressed the Defendant's addressed the Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss.

19 19 Following thehearing, Followingthe hearing,the thecourt courttook tookthe thematter matterunder under advisement advisement pursuant to Supreme pursuant to Supreme Court Court of of

20 Guam AdministrativeRule Guam Administrative Rule06-001, 06-001,CVR CVR7.l(e)(6)(A) 7.l(e)(6)(A) and and CR CR 1.1 1.1 of of the the Local Rules Rules of of the the 21 Superior Court Court of Guam. Guam. Having duly duly considered considered the the parties' briefings, briefings, oral oralargument, argument, and and the 22 applicable law, the the court courtnow now issues issuesthis thisDecision Decisionand andOrder Order DENYING the Defendant's DENYING Defendant's Motion Motion 23

24 24 to Dismiss.

25 \\

26 \\ \\ 27 \\ 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss People People v.v.Babauta, Babita, CF0680-23 Page 11 of of10 10 BACKGROUND 1

2 Defendantwas The Defendant wascharged chargedwith withthe thefollowing followingoffenses: offenses:(1)(1)ARMED ARMEDCARJACKING CARJACKING

3 (As (As aa 1st 1st Degree Degree Felony) Felony) with with Possession Possession or or Use Use of ofaa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the the Commission of aa 4 . | Felony as as aa Special SpeclalAllegation; Allegation,(2) (2) SECOND SECOND DEGREE DEGREE ROBBERY ROBBERY (As (As aa 2nd 2nd Degree Felony) Felony) 5 with Possession or Use Possession or Use of of aa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the the Commission Commission of aa Felony Felony as as aa Special Special 6

7 Allegation; (3) THEFT THEFT OF OF AAMOTOR MOTORVEHICLE VEHICLE(As a 2nd (As a 2ndDegree DegreeFelony) Felony)with withPossession Possession or

8 8 Use of of aa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the the Commission Commission of aa Felony Felony as as aa Special Special Allegation, Allegation; and (4) and (4) 9 9 AGGRAVATED AGGRAVATEDASSAULT ASSAULT(As a 3rd (As a 3rdDegree DegreeFelony) Felony)with withPossession Possession or or Use Use of of aa Deadly Deadly 10 10 Weapon in Weapon in the Commission of of a Felony as a Special Special Allegation. Allegation. 11 II The Defendant was in custody custody during arraignment.At during his arraignment. At the the time, time, the the Public Defender 12 12

13 13 Service Service Corporation ("PDSC") sewed Corporation ("PDSC") servedasashis hisattorney. attorney.During Duringthe thearraignment arraignment hearing, hearing, the the

14 14 Defendant assertedhis Defendant asserted hisright righttotospeedy speedytrial. trial.Arraignment ArraignmentMins. Mins.atat2:41:29PM 2:4l:29PM (Nov. (Nov. 21, 21, 2023). 15 15 However, he also pled Not also pled Not Guilty Guilty by by Reason Reasonof ofMental MentalIllness, Illness,Disease, Disease,ororDefect Defect("NGRI"). ("NGRI"). Id. Id. 16 16 The following following day day the the court court filed filed an an Order Order for forForensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation for for the the Defendant. Defendant. 17 17 18 Order (Nov. (Nov. 22, 22, 2023). 2023). After Afterthe the Defendant's Defendant'sForensic ForensicEvaluation Evaluation was was filed, filed, the the court court scheduled scheduled 18

19 19 a competency hearing hearing for January January4,4,2024. 2024.However, However,PDSC PDSCfiled tiledan Ex Parte Motion Motion to to withdraw

20 as the the Defendant's coLu1seI, counsel, which whichthe thePeople Peopledid did not not oppose. oppose. The The court court then then granted granted PDSC's PDSC's

21 . . . withdrawal and and appointed appointed the theAlternate AlternatePublic PublicDefender Defender("APD") on December ("APD") on December28, 28, 2023. 2023. Order Order 22 (Dec. 28, 28, 2023). 2023). However, However, on onJanuary January 4, 2024, the court 2024, the court granted grantedAPD's APD's Ex Parte Parte Motion to 23 23 24 withdraw withdraw as court-appointed counseland court-appointed counsel andappointed appointedAttorney AttorneyWilliam William Brennan. Brennan. Comp. Comp. Hr' Hr'g 24

25 25 Mims. Mins. at 11:25:02-26:21AM (Jan. at11:25:02-26:21AM (Jan.4, 4,2024). 2024).Due Dueto toaaconflict conflict of of interest, interest, Attorney Attorney Brennan Brennanfiled filed

26 26 a Motion Motion to to withdraw withdraw the the next day. After After granting granting his his withdrawal, withdrawal, the the court court appointed appointed Attorney 27 27

28 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People People v.v.Babauta, Babita, CF0680-23 CF0680-23 Page Page 2 of of 10 10 Vanessa Williams who Vanessa Williams who remains as the remains as the Defendant's Defendant's counsel. counsel.Comp. Comp.Hr'g Hr'g Mins. Mins. at 2:08:25- 1

2 12:22PM 12:22PM (Jan. (Jan. 18, 2024). 2024).

3 On On February 28, 2024, 2024, the thecourt courtheld heldaacontinued continuedCompetency CompetencyHearing Hearing for for the Defendant. 4 . . . During During the the hearing, hearing, the the Defendant Defendant was found found competent competent to be proceeded against.Comp. proceeded against. Comp.Hr' Hr'g 5 Mims. at11:17:27-17:58AM Mins. at 11:17:27-17:58AM (Feb. 28, 2024). 6 On On August 15, 15, 2024, the Defendant 2024, the Defendant filed filed his Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss the the Indictment Indictment arguing arguing 7

8 8 that there wasno there was nogood good cause causeto tocommence commencehis histrial trial beyond beyond the thestatutorily statutorilyprescribed prescribedperiod. period.Mot. Mot.

9 9 Dismiss (Aug. (Aug. 15, 15, 2024). The People People filed filed its its Opposition Oppositionto to the the Motion Motionto to Dismiss Dismiss on on August August 22,

10 2024, refuting that that the theDefendant's Defendant's right right to to speedy speedy trial trialwas violated. Opp'n wasviolated. Opp'n ((Aug. Au 22, 2024). The The 11 11 Defendant subsequently subsequentlyfiled filed his his Reply on on August August 29, 29, 2024, 2024, stating that there was that there was no no implicit 12 12

13 13 waiver waiver to to his his statutory statutory right to speedy trial. trial. Reply (Aug. (Aug.29, 29,2024). 2024). On OnSeptember September 5, 5, 2024, 2024, the

14 14 court took the Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss under under advisement advisement after hearing the parties' arguments. Mot. arguments. Mot. 15 15 Hr'g Hr'gMims. Mins. at 10:50:50~52:04AM 10:50:50-52:04AM (Sept. 5, 2024). 16 16 DISCUSSION 17 17 Pursuant Pursuant toto 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.60(a), 80.60(a), the the court court shall shall dismiss dismiss aa criminal criminal action action for for failure failure to to 18 18

19 19 commence trial of ofaa defendant within f0rty~five defendant within forty-five (45) (45)days days after afterarraignment. arraignment. Because Because Defendant

20 20 Babita Babautaasserted assertedspeedy speedytrial trialaNd arid pled pled NGRI NGRIatathis hisarraignment arraignment hearing, hearing, the the court court must must first 21 determine whether his assertion of of speedy trial was was proper proper when when he he also also placed placed his his mental mental state state 22 22 into question. question. 23

A. Defendant DefendantBabauta's Babauta'sright rightto tospeedy speedy trial trial was was not not violated. 24 24

25 The Defendant argues that thathis hisspeedy speedytrial trial clock clock was no no longer longer tolled tolled once he was deemed

26 26 competent to be proceeded proceeded against on February February 28, 28, 2024. 2024.Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at at33(Aug. (Aug. 15, 2024). 2024). This 27 27 would mean that the would mean Defendant also argues the Defendant argues that thatthe thelast lastday dayfor for the the court courtto tobring bring trial trial would would have 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss People v. Babita, CF0680-23 v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page 3 of of 10 10 been April 13, 13, 2024. Id. Id. at 2. The People contest that because the Defendant reasserted his right 1

2 to speedy trial on July 26, 2024, after the the issue of his mental state was resolved, the new deadline

3 September 9, 2024.11 Opp'n to bring trial was September Opp'n at 3 (Aug. 22, 2024). 4 Pleading NGRI is is an an affirmative affirmative defense defense that that precludes precludes responsibility if if the Defendant Defendant 5 proves the existence existence of of a mental illness, disease disease or or defect by a preponderance of of evidence. 9 GCA 6

§§ 7.22(a). When aa defendant 7.22( a). When defendant enters enters aa plea plea of of NGRI NGRI or gives proper or gives notice of proper notice of it, it, "the "the court court shall shall 7

8 appoint at least one one qualified qualified psychiatrist psychiatrist or or other other qualified qualified person person (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as

9 psychiatrist) psychiatrist) to to examine examine the the defendant defendant and and to report upon to report upon his his mental mental condition." condition." 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.25(a). 7.25(a). 10 The court-appointed psychiatrist must then conform their written court-appointed psychiatrist written report report under the the parameters parameters 11 outlined outlined inc in 9GCA GCA§7 § 7.25(g).2 In aa criminal .25(g). 2 In criminal action, action, the the psychiatrist psychiatrist deems deems aa defendant defendant incompetent incompetent 12 12

13 13 to be proceeded as a result of aa mental proceeded as mental illness, illness, disease disease or defect defect if they are are unable unable to: (1) (1)

14 14 understand the nature of the proceedings, proceedings; (2) assist and cooperate with counsel, counsel; (3) follow the 15 15 evidence, evidence; or or (4) participate in (4) participate in their their defense. defense. 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.37(a). 7.37(a). 16 16 In this case, the court filed its Order for Forensic Evaluation on November November 22, 2023, with 17 17 18 December 22, 2023. Client Services and Family evaluation due on December the evaluation Family Counseling Division Division of of the 18

19 19 Superior Court of Guam ("CSFC") filed the Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation on on December December 12, 12, 2023. Before

20 20 the court could resolve the the issue issue of of the the Defendant's Defendant's competency on the record, PDSC, APD, and 21 21

22 11 Although Although the People's Opposition incorrectly People's Opposition incorrectlystated stated that that the the Defendant Defendant asserted asserted his his right to speedy trial on July 29, 2024, the People correctly indicated during the Motion Hearing that that he asserted on July 26, 2024. 23 22 Under Under 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.25(g), 7.25(g), the the court-appointed psychiatrist's written court-appointed psychiatrist's report of written report of the the Defendant's Defendant's examination examination must must include: 1) A description of include: (1) of the nature of the examination, examination; (2) The number of of examinations and duration of each 24 24 examination; (3) The sources of information about the defendant; examination, defendant, (4) (4) AA diagnosis diagnosis or description description of of the the defendant's defendant's condition; (5) An opinion as to mental condition, to the the defendant's competencyto defendant's competency to be be proceeded proceeded against, against, together together with with the reasons 25 and basis for the opinion; opinion, (6) If the defendant has has been been convicted, an opinion as to to his his competency competency to be sentenced, the reasons together with the reasons and basis basis for for the the opinion; opinion, (7) (7) If If prior toto conviction, an opinion as to whether or not the 26 26 defendant was suffering defendant was suffering from from any mental illness, disease or illness, disease or defect defect at at the the time time of the conduct alleged alleged to have constituted the offense charged charged against against the defendant defendant and whether, whether, as as a result thereof, he lacked substantial capacity 27 27 to know oror understand what he was doing, doing; or or to know or or understand understand that his conduct was wrongful or or to control control his actions, actions; or the extent to which, as a consequence of of mental mental illness, illness, disease or defect, the defendant did or did not 28 28 have a state of mind or the capacity to have a state of of mind mind relevant relevant to any any issue issue in in the trial of the action; action, (8) A A report of of the care and treatment received by defendant prior to to the examination.

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People v. CF0680-23 Babita, CF0680-23 v. Babauta, Page Page 4 of of 10 10 Attorney Brennan Brennan respectively respectively filed filed each each of of their their motions motions to to withdraw withdraw as counsel due to conflicts 1

2 of interest.33 After of After appointing appointing Attorney Attorney Vanessa Vanessa Williams as new counsel, the court declared the

3 Defendant competent to be proceeded proceeded against against based on on the the Forensic Forensic Evaluation, which neither 4 . . . party disputed. disputed. Further FurtherProceedings ProceedlngsMins. Mlns. at at11:17:27-17:58AM 11:17:27-17:58AM (Feb. 28, 2024). 5 Because the Defendant's Defendant's mental mental state state was was put put at at issue issue at the time of of the arraignment, the 6

court agrees that the Defendant could not not have properly properly asserted asserted his his right right to speedy speedy trial until his 7

8 competency competency was was no longer longer in question. Because the Defendant's Defendant's assertion assertion at at arraignment was not 9 valid, the Defendant properly asserted his right to speedy trial trial on July 26, 2024, after the court 10 10 n . . deemed the deemed the Defendant Defendantcompetent competenttotobe beproceeded against. 4 Based proceededaga1nst.4 Based on on thls this assertion, assertion, the court was 111

required required to bring trial no no later than than September September 9, 9, 2024. 2024. Therefore, Therefore, the the Defendant's Defendant's right to to speedy 12 12

13 13 trial was not violated.

14 14 B. B. Even if if the the Defendant's right to to speedy speedy trial was violated, the Defendant Defendant implicitly implicitly consented consented totosetting settingaadate datefor fortrial trial beyond the prescribed period. 15 15

16 16 The court shall not dismiss a criminal action for failure failure to to commence commence trial of a defendant

17 17 within forty-five (45) days after arraignment arraignment if: if: ((1) the the Defendant Defendant expressly expressly or implicitly implicitly consents 18 18 to setting a trial trial date date beyond beyond forty-five (45) days; days, (2) the Defendant Defendant failed failed to to appear appear for trial and 19 19 is brought to trial trial within within thirty thirty (30) (30) days days following following his next appearance, appearance; or (3) there is good cause 20 20

for for failure to commence failure to commence the the trial trial within within the the prescribed prescribed period. period. 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.60(b) 80.60(b) (emphasis (emphasis 21

22 added).55

23 23

24 33 Ex Parte Mot. Withdraw Ex Parte Withdraw (Dec. (Dec. 20, 20, 2023), 2023); Ex Parte Mot. Mot. Withdraw Withdraw (Jan(Jan 3, 3, 2024), 2024); Mot. Mot. Withdraw Withdraw (Jan.(Jan. 5, 2024). 44 July 29, On July 29, 2024, the court 2024, the court noted for the the record record that that although the court's although the court's minute minute entry entry may may indicate indicate that that the the 25 25 Defendant asserted at his asserted at hearing,the arraignmenthearing, his arraignment theDefendant Defendantactually actuallydid did not not assert asserthis hisright righttoto speedy speedy trial. trial. Pre- Trial Conference Conference Mims. Mins. at 2:2:l7:44PM 17:44PM(July (July29, 29,2024). 2024).When Whenaadefendant defendantplaces placestheir theirmental mental state state at at issue, issue, but still 26 26 asserttheir wants to assert to speedy right to theirright speedy trial, it it is is common common practice practice among among Magistrate MagistrateJudges Judges to assert assert speedy trial onon the Defendant's Defendant's behalf behalf.Although Althoughthe thecourt courtdoes doesnot notagree agreewith withthis thispractice, practice,the thecourt courtunderstands understands that that this practice is 27 27 in in place to ensure that aa case ensure that casedoes doesnot notlinger linger while other procedural matters,like procedural matters, like discovery discovery or appointment appointment of of new counsels, are are pending pending completion. completion. 28 28 55 Because 8 GCA § 80.60(b)(2) is not relevant to this case, the court will only address 8 GCA § 80.60(b)(l) and Because 8 GCA § 80.60(b)(2) is not relevant to this case, the court will only address 8 GCA § 80.60(b)(l) and (3).

Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People v. CF0680-23 Babita, CF0680-23 v. Babauta, Page5 Page 5 of of 10 10 1. There Therewas wasno nogood good cause for failure cause for failure to commence commencethe thetrial trial within within forty-five forty-five (45) 1 d~L days. . 2 The Guam Guam Supreme Court acknowledged Supreme Court acknowledged that that delays delays for for the the benefit of of the the defendant defendant 3

4 constitute constitute good cause causefor fortolling tolling the speedy speedytrial trial clock. clock. Urzgacta Ungacta v.v.Superior Superior Court Court of ofGuam, Guam, 2013 4

5 5 Guam 29 (arguing (arguing that that "delays "delays caused caused by, or for for the the benefit benefitof ofthe the defendant defendant constitute constitute good good cause cause

6 6 for speedy speedy trial trial purposes."). purposes."). However, delay delay attributable to the the fault attributable to fault of of the the prosecution prosecution or 7 7 . . . . . improper court administration does not constitute good cause.People cause. v. ,r v. Flores, 2009 Guam 221] 8 32. "Whether "Whether there there is is good good cause cause for for delay delaybeyond beyondthe thetime timeprescribed prescribedin inthe thestatute statute depends depends on 9 9

10 the facts and circumstances circumstancesof of each each case case and andisisaadetermination determinationwithin withinthe thediscretion discretion of of the trial

11 court. Nicholson v. Superior Superior Court of Guam, 2007 Guam 9 ,r ofGuam, 1] 13 13(citing (citing Hollis Hollis v.v. Super. Super. Cr., Ct., 165 165 12 12 Cal. App. ad 642, 645 3d 642, 645(1985)). (1985)) 13 13 The Defendant argues argues that thatnot notonly only was wasthere therewas wasno nogood good cause causefor forthe thePeople's People's failure 14 14 commence trial to commence trial within within forty-five forty-five(45) (45)days, days,but butthat that his his conduct conduct after after being deemed competent competent 15 15

16 16 does not constitute animplied constitute an implied waiver waiver of his right to to speedy trial. 6 In the speedy trial.6 Motion Hearing, the Motion Hearing, the

17 17 Defendant stated stated that thedelay thatthe delay prejudiced prejudicedhim him through throughthe thePeople's People's promises promises to to send send an an offer offer 18 18 rather thanproceed rather than proceedwith withtrial; trial,but butno nooffer offerwas wassent senttotothis thisday. day.Mot. Mot.Hr'g Hr'g Mins. at 10:20:25- 19 19 21:20AM :20AM (Sept. 5, 2024). While the People While the People acknowledge acknowledgethe theDefendant Defendantwas was not not brought brought to to trial trial 20 20

within the prescribed period, it reasons prescribed period, that the reasons that the delay delay in commencing trial was justified. commencing trial justified. For 21

22 22 instance, instance, atat the the time time alleged alleged negotiations negotiationsfor for an an offer offer took took place, place, the People People prioritized prioritized the the

23 23 Defendant's Defendant's homicide case that that was wasset setfor fortrial. trial.Mot. Mot. Hr'g Hr'g Mims. at 10:25:50-27:40AM Mins. at 10:25:50-27:40AM (Sept. 5, 24 24 2024).77 25

26 26

27 27 6 Mot. Dismiss at 3-4 (Aug. 15, 2024), 6 Mot. Dismiss at 3-4 (Aug. 2024); Reply at 2 (Aug. 29, 2024). 28 28 7 In CF0458-23, the Defendant was charged with AGGRAVATED MURDER (As a let Degree Felony) and GUILT 7 In CF0458-23, the Defendant was charged with AGGRAVATED MURDER (As a 1st Degree Felony) and GUILT BY COMPLICITY COMPLICITY (As(As a Felony). Ultimately, a Felony). thethe Ultimately, case was case dismissed was dismissedwithout prejudiceon withoutprejudice 3, 2024. July 3, onJuly 2024.

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People People v. Babaura,CF0680-23 v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page Page 6 of of 10 10 While While the the court therewas that there court agrees that nogood wasno causefor good cause the People's for the the People's failure to bring the 1

2 2 Defendant to to trial trial within forty-five forty-five (45) (45)days daysofofhis hisarraignment, court must the court arraignment,the whether must review whether

3 the the Defendant expressly or implicitly September 9, on September date on trial date his trial setting his court setting the court tothe consentedto implicitlyconsented 4 2024. 5 2. There was implied 2. consent from implied consent DefendantBabauta from Defendant to set Babita to trial beyond set trial the beyond the 6 prescribed period. 7 Because the Defendant Because the Defendantnever neverlodged lodged aawaiver waiver of speedy speedy trial with with the court, or verbally the court, 8 stated his intent stated his intentto to waive, waive, the the court court is satisfied that that there there isis no no proof proof of ofthe the Defendant's express Defendant's express 9 10 10 consent to set consent to set trial trial beyond forty-five ((45) prescribedforty-five the prescribed beyond the issue the days. The issue 45) days. court will the court will now

11 11 determine determine is whether Defendantimplicitly the Defendant whether the that provided by implicitly consented to a trial date beyond that

12 12 statute. 13 13 People addressed The People arguments in addressed several arguments theMotion in the the Defendant's Motion Hearing regarding the Defendant's 14 14 alleged consent to alleged consent bring trial to bring on September trial on 9, 2024. September 9, First, because 2024. First, the court's because the Order8 granting court's Orders granting 15 15

16 16 APD's APD'swithdrawal withdrawalleft leftthe the"ASSERTED" "ASSERTED"box unmarked, box unmarked,the thePeople Peopleargued arguedthat neither parties thatneither parties

17 17 nor the the court court assumed Defendantwas theDefendant thatthe assumed that still asserted. wasstill Mot. Hr'g asserted.Mot. 10:29:24- Mins. at 10:29:24- Hr'g Mims.

18 18 30:28AM 30:28AM(Sept. (Sept.5, 5,2024). 2024).Second, Second,the the People Peopleargued arguedthat that there there was no objection objection to September 9, to September 19 19 2024, as a trial trial date court scheduled the court date when the on the scheduleditit on record on therecord July29, onJuly 2024.Id. 29,2024. at 10:32:46- Id. at 10:32:46- 20 20 33:40AM. :40AM. In the the People's People's Opposition, Opposition,ititalso alsotreated treatedthe the Defendant's Defendant's request request for for aa court-appointed 21

22 investigator as as an animplicit implicit waiver, waiver, because becauseititwas wasfiled beyond April filed beyond 2024. Opp'n April 13, 2024. at 33 (Aug. Opp'n at (Aug.

23 22, 2024). 2024). In In response, response, the the Defendant Defendant argued mistake to counsel's mistake that counsel's argued that should not be to object should 24 24 imputed on on the theDefendant Mot. Hr'g himself.Mot. Defendanthimself. 10:21 :52-22:45AM. Mins. at 10:21 Hr'g Mims. :52-22:45AM. 25 25 In 2010, 2010, the the Guam Guam Supreme Court first addressed Supreme Court the issue addressed the issue of whether whether aa defendant's defendant's 26

27 failure failure to object, object, through through counsel, to the coult's counsel, to court's postponement postponement of trial trial beyond beyond the the prescribed prescribed 27

28 8 Order Granting Withdrawal (Jan. 5, 8 Order Granting Withdrawal (Jan. 5, 2024).

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss People People v.v.Babauta, Babita, CF0680-23 Page 7 of of 10 10 period and articulated a two-fold purpose purpose for for why why a defendant must object at the time the cause 1

2 is is set set for trial trial beyond beyond the statutory period. Quinata rata v. v. Superior Superior Court, Court,2010 Guam881],r 17. 2010Guam 17. First,

3 the defendant's objection objection may may procure an earlier trial for the the Defendant Defendant by by calling calling the the trial trial court's coult's 4 attention to the facts the objection is based upon. Id. (citing People v. v. Lind, Lind, 229 P. 990, 991 991 (Cal. 5 1924)). Second, 1924)). Second, without without the the objection objection being being made made on the record, record, the defendant defendant is unable to 6

7 preserve their right to appeal in the future. Id. Ultimately, the Guam future. Id. Guam Supreme Supreme Court found that 7

8 the defendant consented to a postponement when defense counsel failed to object to it. it. Qui rata Quinata 9 ,r (finding that when the court 20101]30 court notified notified defense defense counsel counselininQuinata's Quinta's presence presence that that due to 10 10 another asserted trial, trial, his pretrial pretrial conference conference would be postponed postponed until until the following week, and 11 defense counsel failed to object to the postponement. 9 12 12

13 13 Here, the court is aware that Defendant Babauta asserted his right to speedy trial during a

14 14 Further Proceedings on July 26, 2024. Based Based on on the the court's court's records, the the Defendant Defendant only expressed 15 15 his intent to file a Motion for Bail Redetermination as well as Redetermination as as his outstanding outstanding requests requests for for a court- 16 16 appointed investigator and grand jury jury transcripts. Further Fiuther Proceedings Mins. at 2:22:53-23 2:22:53-23:23PM 17 17 2024}. Like defense counsel in Quinata, (July 26, 2024). did not object to the rata, Attorney Williams did the court's 18 18

19 19 scheduling scheduling of of trial for September 9, 2024. Notably, when the court asked the parties to clarify the

20 20 Defendant's Defendant's waiver waiver of ofspeedy speedy trial, trial, he he indicated indicated that that this this was was correct correct before asserting his right to 21 speedy trial on the the record record aa few few seconds seconds later. later. Further Further Proceedings Proceedings Mims. at 2:24:30-24:41PM Mins. at 22 (July 26, 2024). After calculating 2024). After calculating the the Defendant's Defendant's speedy speedy trial clock based on the Defendant's 23 23

24 24

26 26 99 While Supreme Court While the Guam Supreme Court cited cited cases caseswhere wherecourts courtsdid didnot notimply imply a defendant's defendant's consent consent from from their their counsel's failure to to object, object, those those cases are distinguishable cases are distinguishable from from this matter. matter. In those those cases, the courts cases, the courts refused refusedto to imply imply a 27 27 defendant's defendant's consent consent from from defense defense counsel's counsel's actions actions regarding regarding the the bases bases of counsels' actions were to resolve calendar conflicts amid amid a defendant's express objection. objection. Quinata, rata, 2010 Guam ,r (citing Guam 81119 (citing People People v. Johnson, Johnson, 606 P.2d 738, 28 28 744 (Cal 1980), 1980); Cruz v.v. People of Terr. Terr. of of Guam, Guam, DCA DCA No. No. 88-00035A, 88-00035A, 1989 1989 WL 265029 265029 (D. Guam Guam App. Div. 1989))

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page Page 8 of of 10 10 July 26th assertion, July 26th assertion,the the court courtissued issuedits itsCriminal Criminal Trial Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order. Despite this, this, neither neither 1

2 2 party raised raised issues issues or orobi sections about objections about any any dates listed listed in inthat order. 10 thatorder.10

3 Prior Prior to his his July 26thassertion, July 26th assertion,Defendant DefendantBabauta Babita also also made of alleged made no record of alleged speedy 4 trial violations for not bringing bringing trial trial by April 13, 2024, even by April even after after the court resolved the issue issue of of . ' 5 1

the Defendant's Defendant's competency competency back back in in February. February. Instead, the Defendant proceeded to to file motions 6

7 on May May 16, 2024. 11 Because 16, 2024.11 Becausenothing nothingwas was mentioned mentioned before before or during during the Defendant's Defendant's Further Further

8 Proceedings on April April 24, 24, 2024, 2024, the the court court viewed viewed the the Defendant's Defendant's inaction inaction on on potential potential speedy speedy

9 9 trial violations as as an intent to move forward with intent to with the the case case after after the April April 13, 13, 2024. 2024. Since Since the the

10 Defendant's Defendant's competency competencyissue issueresolved, resolved,his hisactions actionsbetween betweenApril April1313and andJuly July29 29.-- - including his 11 11 clarification clarification on on the the waiver, waiver, motions motions filed filed within withinthat that time time period, period, and the lack of and the of objection objection to the 12 12

13 13 dates within the dates within the court's court's Criminal Criminal Trial Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order Order-- collectively collectivelyshow showthat that the the Defendant Defendant

14 14 implicitly implicitlyconsented consented to to having having his his trial trial on on September September 9, 9, 2024. 15 15 Thus, the Thus, the court court finds Ends that thatthe themandate mandateof of 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.60 80.60 were were observed observed and and that that the the 16 16 Defendant's Defendant's statutory speedy trial statutory speedy trial rights rights were were not not violated. violated. 17 17

18 18 \\\\ 19 19 \\\\ 20 20 \\\\ 21 \\\\ 22 \\\\ 23 23 \\\\ 2244 \\" 225 5 \\\ 26 26

27 27 10 The 10 later acknowledged The court later acknowledged onon the the record that it had had made made a clerical error as to to some of ofthe the dates dates listed listed in in the the Criminal Criminal Trial Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order. Order. Upon Uponthe the court's court'scorrection, correction,the the parties parties had had no objection objection to to the the errors found. 28 28 11 Request for Disclosure QVIay 6, 2024), Formal Request for Evidence (May 6, 2024), Mot. Grand Jury Transcripts 11 Request for Disclosure (May 6, 2024); Formal Request for Evidence (May 6, 2024); Mot. Grand Jury Transcripts (May 16, (May 16, 2024), 2024); Mot. Mot. Investigator Investigator (May 16, 2024). (May 16,

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People v. v. Eabauta, Babauta, CF0680-23 Page 9 of of 10 10 CONCLUSION 1

2 For For the the reasons reasons set forth above, above, the the could court hereby hereby DENIES the Defendant's Defendant's Motion to

3 3 Dismiss. 4

5 SO ORDERED ORDEREDthis this DEC 03 O3hinze» ----------- 202~· 6

9 i

10 10 HONORABLE HONORABLE ALBERTO ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO TOLENTINO 11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Judge, Guam

12 12

113 3

15 15

16 16

17 17 senvlce Sl!llVICI!vIA VIAl:4wAIL l!-MAIL ., acknowledge ackr,owiedge Kha! that aneir, elecuonlc etect,on1c. 18 18 Cony Copy aV of me the Ovvgmal was emailed orig,n.a1 v.1as haded to

19 19 #b 5, 1 W///mr-§ ),,/,'///tir>' c

20 20 Date_li/4/H Time. Date. w e / w Tune. 2.-. ' ~ .

21 21 A I Ix,, .f- (A/Jw 4/Aw* C, ;ck. AS A.-t Deputy clerk.Superior Deputy Supeno, Court Court at of Guam Guam

22 22

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Motion Motion to to Dismiss People People v.v.Babauta, Babita, CF0680-23 Page 10 10 of 10 10