.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25
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
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
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
7
8
9 i
10 10 HONORABLE HONORABLE ALBERTO
ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO
TOLENTINO
11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Judge, Guam
12 12
113 3
14
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
23 23
24 24
25
26
27
28
Decision Decision &
& Order
Order Re. Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
People People v.v.Babauta,
Babita, CF0680-23 Page 10
10 of 10