SUPERiC) : c:! URT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUANO! ('t 1 l ChULT PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE Nb.TZFf15
5 V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Restitution) LEE JOHN BLAS, De fe nda nt.
10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 16, 2013 fo 12
further proceedings. Assistant Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi represented the People of Guam 13
14 ("the People"). Lee John Blas ("Defendant") appeared with his counsel, Jeffrey A. Moots, Esq
15 Upon confirmation that all documents related to restitution had been filed, the Court took the 16 matter under advisement. Now, taking all evidence and arguments into consideration, the Courl 17 issues its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1 8 19 FINDINGS OF FACT
20 By preponderance of the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 21 1. Defendant was indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury on March 4, 2011. 22 Defendant was charged with Burglary ( as a 2"d Degree Felony) and Theft of Property (as a 3` 23
Degree Felony). Indictment (Mar. 4, 2011). 24
25 2 . The charges filed against Defendant arise from events taking place on or about June
26 14, 2010, committed against Dianne S.A. Bell. It is alleged that Defendant entered the habitabl 27 property of Ms. Bell, located in Ordot, with intent to commit the crime of theft therein, at a tiro 28
People v. Bi as (CF115-11) Page 1 of 6 Findings ofFaet and Conclusions of Law - Restitution -'premises were neither open to the publtic nut efendant licensed or privileged to s
2 enter. It is also alleged that Defendant did assist Daniel Fejerang in unlawfully taking, obtainin
3 and exercising unlawful control over the movable property of Dianne S.A. Bell with intent t 4 deprive�Dianne�S.A.�Bell�thereof,�the�amount�involved�being�less�than�$1,500,�but�exceedin� 5 $500.00. Indictment (Mar. 4, 2011). 6
7 3. On March 6, 2013, Defendant entered a Plea Agreement. Defendant voluntarily, and
8 without coercion or promises apart from his Plea Agreement, agreed to enter a guilty plea to
9 indictment filed by the prosecutor containing the charge of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property 10 (as a 3rd Degree Fe(ony). Plea Agreement at 12 (Mar. 6, 2013). 11 4 . In accordance with the Plea Agreement, Defendant acknowledged that he "shall bI 12
13 held jointly and severally liable to the victim, Dianne S.A. Bell, pursuant to 9 GCA §80.50(e)'
14 for restitution. Plea Agreement at ¶ 8(c) (Mar. 6, 2013).
15 5. Judgment was entered on November 8, 2013. The Judgment also incorporates th 16 restitution provision in the Plea Agreement. See Judgment at ¶ C (Nov. 8, 2013). 17 6. The People submitted a restitution summary requesting restitution in the amour 1 8
19 $96,481.00. Submission of Restitution Summary (Mar. 11, 2013).
20 7 . On Augus t 22, 2013, a Restitution Hearing ' took place relative to Defendant Blas
21 along with Derrick Whi t e with respect to CF30- 1I and Daniel Fejeran for C1771-11. T he C ouo
22 23 allowed counsels for the parties to submit additional information at their request before talon
24 I the matter under advisement.
27 1 The Court set the matter for November 18, 2013, however, the parties stipulated for a later date since the assign 28 Assistant Attorney General was no longer on island. See Stipulation & Order (Nov. 22, 2013).
People v. Bi as (CF115-11) Page 2 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusionso f t aw - Restitution 8. On September 5, 2013 DcTelidaatliled his objection to the proposed restitutron
2 amount of $96,481.00.
3 9. The People filed their response to Defendant's opposition on November 26, 2013
Likewise, the People submitted additional supporting documentation from Dianne S.A. Bell o
December 10, 2013.
10. The Court set its final Restitution Hearing relative to this case on December 16, 2013.
e CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 9 "The Co u rt shal l requ i re rest i t u t i o n i n al l cases wherei n t he o ffender has been co nvi ct e d 10 of a crime involving damage to property of the victim when the offender is or, given a fah 11 opportunity to do so, will be able to pay the restitution." 9 GCA § 8 0 . 5 3 (2 0 0 5 ). A def endan t 12
13 may be ordered to pay restitution for losses2 to the victim so long as the restitution does no
14 exceed the victim's loss resulting from the offense. See 9 GCA § 80.50 (2005). The losse 15 oevaluated ffense by for t he purposes o ffender.ofIdrestitution The gu i di ng pri ncibepllosses should e o f rest i t u t i oby caused n i sthe t o make t heconstituting conduct te vi ct i m who l eth 16
17 the extent permitted by the statutory and constitutional scheme. In re An d rew C., 2 1 5 Ari z. 3 6 6 16
19 367, ¶ 10, 160 P.3d 687, 689 (App.2007). With the case at bar, restitution is necessary because i
20 wo u l d act as a deterrent and a correcting influence on the defendant. See 9 GCA § 8 0 .5 2 (b)(2 ) 21 Furthermore, Defendant through hi s P l ea Agree ment , voluntarily agr eed he wo u l d pa 22 restitution. P l ea Ag reemen t at 18 (c). 23 The conviction in this instant case is of a third degree felony which would ordinarily limi 24
25 t he o rder o f rest i t u t i o n t o $ 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 as prescri bed by 9 GCA § 8 0 .5 0 (b). However, restitutio
26 awards in excess of the statutory ceiling are allowed under section 80.50 (e) but are limited up t 27 double the amount equal to the loss to the victim. See P eo p l e v. Mal lo, 2 0 0 8 Gua m 2 3 1 4 1. 28 3 The term "loss" means the amount of value separated from the victim. 9 GCA §80.50(e).
People v. Blas (CF115-11) Page 3 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law- Restitution Section 80.50(e) of Title 9FE-a Uode Annotated allows a judge to order-uj. Lu-$}13 000} ii
restitution without any findings, and to order a higher amount equal to the loss to the victim o
gain to offender if the judge makes a finding as to the amount . Id . at ¶ 43.
In calculating the amo unt owed in restitution, the court needs o nly a reasonable
determination of appropriate restitution US. v. Kearney , 672 F . 3d 81(1't Cir. 2012). Trial court
may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution which is reasonably calculated t
make the victim whole. People v. Goulart, 273 Cal. Rptr. 477, 483 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 1990).
When read pla inly, 9 GCA § 80. 50 can be interpreted as governing restitution to the 10 extent of losses incurred by victim caused by the conduct constituting the offe nse whit 11 Defendant is convicted.4 "A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced 12
pay a fine or to make restitution not exceeding any higher amount equal to double the loss to the 13
14 victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender. " Id. "The law on statutory
15 construction is well-settled. [ I]f a statute is unambiguous, then judicial inquiry is complete.' 16 People v. Quichocho , 1997 Guam 13 15 (citing Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424 ( 1981). 17 A plain deconstruction shows that a person convicted of an offense must pay restitution 18
19 to a victim . The amount the convicted person must pay is the amount of losses caused by the
20 conduct constituting the offense. The offense referred to in " conduct constituting the offense"
21 can only be referring to the " offense" which a person is convicted of in the beginning of this 22 statute.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUPERiC) : c:! URT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUANO! ('t 1 l ChULT PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE Nb.TZFf15
5 V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Restitution) LEE JOHN BLAS, De fe nda nt.
10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 16, 2013 fo 12
further proceedings. Assistant Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi represented the People of Guam 13
14 ("the People"). Lee John Blas ("Defendant") appeared with his counsel, Jeffrey A. Moots, Esq
15 Upon confirmation that all documents related to restitution had been filed, the Court took the 16 matter under advisement. Now, taking all evidence and arguments into consideration, the Courl 17 issues its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1 8 19 FINDINGS OF FACT
20 By preponderance of the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 21 1. Defendant was indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury on March 4, 2011. 22 Defendant was charged with Burglary ( as a 2"d Degree Felony) and Theft of Property (as a 3` 23
Degree Felony). Indictment (Mar. 4, 2011). 24
25 2 . The charges filed against Defendant arise from events taking place on or about June
26 14, 2010, committed against Dianne S.A. Bell. It is alleged that Defendant entered the habitabl 27 property of Ms. Bell, located in Ordot, with intent to commit the crime of theft therein, at a tiro 28
People v. Bi as (CF115-11) Page 1 of 6 Findings ofFaet and Conclusions of Law - Restitution -'premises were neither open to the publtic nut efendant licensed or privileged to s
2 enter. It is also alleged that Defendant did assist Daniel Fejerang in unlawfully taking, obtainin
3 and exercising unlawful control over the movable property of Dianne S.A. Bell with intent t 4 deprive�Dianne�S.A.�Bell�thereof,�the�amount�involved�being�less�than�$1,500,�but�exceedin� 5 $500.00. Indictment (Mar. 4, 2011). 6
7 3. On March 6, 2013, Defendant entered a Plea Agreement. Defendant voluntarily, and
8 without coercion or promises apart from his Plea Agreement, agreed to enter a guilty plea to
9 indictment filed by the prosecutor containing the charge of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property 10 (as a 3rd Degree Fe(ony). Plea Agreement at 12 (Mar. 6, 2013). 11 4 . In accordance with the Plea Agreement, Defendant acknowledged that he "shall bI 12
13 held jointly and severally liable to the victim, Dianne S.A. Bell, pursuant to 9 GCA §80.50(e)'
14 for restitution. Plea Agreement at ¶ 8(c) (Mar. 6, 2013).
15 5. Judgment was entered on November 8, 2013. The Judgment also incorporates th 16 restitution provision in the Plea Agreement. See Judgment at ¶ C (Nov. 8, 2013). 17 6. The People submitted a restitution summary requesting restitution in the amour 1 8
19 $96,481.00. Submission of Restitution Summary (Mar. 11, 2013).
20 7 . On Augus t 22, 2013, a Restitution Hearing ' took place relative to Defendant Blas
21 along with Derrick Whi t e with respect to CF30- 1I and Daniel Fejeran for C1771-11. T he C ouo
22 23 allowed counsels for the parties to submit additional information at their request before talon
24 I the matter under advisement.
27 1 The Court set the matter for November 18, 2013, however, the parties stipulated for a later date since the assign 28 Assistant Attorney General was no longer on island. See Stipulation & Order (Nov. 22, 2013).
People v. Bi as (CF115-11) Page 2 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusionso f t aw - Restitution 8. On September 5, 2013 DcTelidaatliled his objection to the proposed restitutron
2 amount of $96,481.00.
3 9. The People filed their response to Defendant's opposition on November 26, 2013
Likewise, the People submitted additional supporting documentation from Dianne S.A. Bell o
December 10, 2013.
10. The Court set its final Restitution Hearing relative to this case on December 16, 2013.
e CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 9 "The Co u rt shal l requ i re rest i t u t i o n i n al l cases wherei n t he o ffender has been co nvi ct e d 10 of a crime involving damage to property of the victim when the offender is or, given a fah 11 opportunity to do so, will be able to pay the restitution." 9 GCA § 8 0 . 5 3 (2 0 0 5 ). A def endan t 12
13 may be ordered to pay restitution for losses2 to the victim so long as the restitution does no
14 exceed the victim's loss resulting from the offense. See 9 GCA § 80.50 (2005). The losse 15 oevaluated ffense by for t he purposes o ffender.ofIdrestitution The gu i di ng pri ncibepllosses should e o f rest i t u t i oby caused n i sthe t o make t heconstituting conduct te vi ct i m who l eth 16
17 the extent permitted by the statutory and constitutional scheme. In re An d rew C., 2 1 5 Ari z. 3 6 6 16
19 367, ¶ 10, 160 P.3d 687, 689 (App.2007). With the case at bar, restitution is necessary because i
20 wo u l d act as a deterrent and a correcting influence on the defendant. See 9 GCA § 8 0 .5 2 (b)(2 ) 21 Furthermore, Defendant through hi s P l ea Agree ment , voluntarily agr eed he wo u l d pa 22 restitution. P l ea Ag reemen t at 18 (c). 23 The conviction in this instant case is of a third degree felony which would ordinarily limi 24
25 t he o rder o f rest i t u t i o n t o $ 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 as prescri bed by 9 GCA § 8 0 .5 0 (b). However, restitutio
26 awards in excess of the statutory ceiling are allowed under section 80.50 (e) but are limited up t 27 double the amount equal to the loss to the victim. See P eo p l e v. Mal lo, 2 0 0 8 Gua m 2 3 1 4 1. 28 3 The term "loss" means the amount of value separated from the victim. 9 GCA §80.50(e).
People v. Blas (CF115-11) Page 3 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law- Restitution Section 80.50(e) of Title 9FE-a Uode Annotated allows a judge to order-uj. Lu-$}13 000} ii
restitution without any findings, and to order a higher amount equal to the loss to the victim o
gain to offender if the judge makes a finding as to the amount . Id . at ¶ 43.
In calculating the amo unt owed in restitution, the court needs o nly a reasonable
determination of appropriate restitution US. v. Kearney , 672 F . 3d 81(1't Cir. 2012). Trial court
may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution which is reasonably calculated t
make the victim whole. People v. Goulart, 273 Cal. Rptr. 477, 483 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 1990).
When read pla inly, 9 GCA § 80. 50 can be interpreted as governing restitution to the 10 extent of losses incurred by victim caused by the conduct constituting the offe nse whit 11 Defendant is convicted.4 "A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced 12
pay a fine or to make restitution not exceeding any higher amount equal to double the loss to the 13
14 victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender. " Id. "The law on statutory
15 construction is well-settled. [ I]f a statute is unambiguous, then judicial inquiry is complete.' 16 People v. Quichocho , 1997 Guam 13 15 (citing Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424 ( 1981). 17 A plain deconstruction shows that a person convicted of an offense must pay restitution 18
19 to a victim . The amount the convicted person must pay is the amount of losses caused by the
20 conduct constituting the offense. The offense referred to in " conduct constituting the offense"
21 can only be referring to the " offense" which a person is convicted of in the beginning of this 22 statute. There also must be a direct link between the loss for which restitution was ordered an 23 the conduct for which defendant was convicted. State v. Kenvin , 2011 VT 12 3, ¶ 11 (Vt 24
27 The$ 10,000 ceiling applied to a 1" or 2°d Degree conviction, as referenced in Mato, 2008 Guam 23. ° It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must look first to the language of the statute itself... Absen 28 clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails. Sumitomo Cont., Ltd v. Governm ent of Goa 2001 WL 1360135 Guam Ten., 2001.
People v. Bl as (CF115-11) Page 4 of 6 Findi ngs of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Restitution Suprem&T:omt- ate losses which victims can recover formuE5 e-dliecYresults of 1
defendant's crime. Id. at ¶ 13.
Because of the plain reading of the statute above, Defendant should only be responsibl e
for those losses directly caused by his conduct for which he was convicted, Theft by Receivin g
Stolen Property (as a 3"' Degree F el o ny). "A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives
retains or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen or believin g
8 that it has probably been stolen. It is a defense to a charge of violating this Section that the
9 defendant received, retained or disposed the property with intent to restore it to the owner." 10 GCA § 4 3 .5 0 (a). In part i cu l ar, Defendant pl ed t o a t hi rd degree fel o ny t heft cri me whi ch G uam II l aw defi nes as: Theft co nst i t u t es a fel o ny o f t he t hi rd degree i f t he amo u nt i nvo l ved i s l ess t han 12
13 One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) but exceeds Five hundred Dollars ($500.00) o
14 if the property stolen is a firearm or motorized vehicle other than those set forth in Subsection (a 15 of this Section, or if the theft is through an unauthorized electrical connection[]" 9 GCA § 4 3 .2 16 (b). 17 In the instant case, the People submitted on behalf of Dianne S.A. Bell, a request fin 18
19 restitution in the amount of $96,481.00. The victim's restitution request far exceeds the amour
20 au t ho ri zed by 9 GCA § 80.50 (b). Title 9 GCA § 80.50 (e) grants the authority after a fording o
21 loss to the victim that is higher than that enumerated in the breakdown provided under § 80.50 22 However, while the Plea Agreement represents said subsection, absent more information, the 23 Court is not convinced to invoke subsection (e) of 80.50. Hav i ng reviewed the file a nd th e 24
25 information provided, specifically the Indictment, price quotes, an d vi ct i ms' st at ement wi th
26 corresponding content price summary, the Court finds that Defendant Lee Blas is jointly an d 27
Peopl e v. Bras (CF115d I) Page 5 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -Resti tution se ie y-t e -io=pay restitution in the amo u nt o f $1, i J(1 1 (F ai i t o nl y re la te s to a 3 7 inc h
television set.
4 CONCLUSION 5 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 6 ORDERS the Defendant Lee John Blas to pay restitution in the meant of One Thousand Five 7
8 Hundred Dollars ($ 1,500.00) for the loss (37 inch television) incurred to the Victim herein as he
9 is jointly and severally liable to Dianne S.A. Bell. 10 A progress hearing is set for 9 •Pori 11 SO ORDERED this day of AP L, 2014. 12
15 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 16 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 17
23 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX I acknowledge that a copy of me 24 original hereto was placed in Me .Uri 25 A L ,
People v. Bias (CF115-11) Page 6 of6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Restitution