People v. Borja, Jr.

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE No. CM 1297-11 4 ) ) 5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) On Defendant's 6 GREGORIO CONCEPCION BORJA, JR.. ) Motion for Reconsideration 7 ) of Decision & Order Defendant. ) 8

INTRODUCTION 11

12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on September 12, 201

13 on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for the Dismissal of the Complaint. Th 14 People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney General James Collins. The Defendan 15 was represented by Assistant Public Defender Maria Fitzpatrick. Having reviewed th 16

17 memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues the following decision DENYING th

18 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. 19 FACTUAL HISTORY 20 The Defendant is charged with four counts of misdemeanor Assault for acts alleged to hav 21 occurred on June 29, 2011. On March 26, 2012 the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss th 22

23 complaint arguing that his right to prompt arraignment had been violated. The People timel

24 filed an opposition and on June 29, 2012 this Court issued a Decision and Order denying th 25 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 26 The Defendant has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that clear error wa 27 committed in the Court's previous Decision and Order. The Defendant specifically argues: (l 28

Page 1 of5 that "there was no reason that the first appearance had to be held 58 days after the complaint wa 2 filed," (2) that "The Court committed clear error in finding that defendant requested 3 continuance of 30 days," and (3) that the Decision and Order "conflicts with this Court' 4 Decision and Order in People v. Karson K. Harper CM 380-09." The Court disagrees with eac 5

6 of these statements. Furthermore, because the Defendant has not met the standard fo

7 reconsideration the Court now denies the Defendant's motion. 8 DISCUSSION 9 The Defendant has been charged with four counts of misdemeanor Assault, for an allege 10

11 incident that occurred on June 29, 2011. After asserting his right to speedy trial, the Defendan

12 made a motion to dismiss his case for violation of his right to prompt arraignment. The Co 13 issued a Decision and Order denying the motion on June 29, 2012. In that Decision and Orde 14 the Court held that the Defendant's right to prompt arraignment had not been violated as th 15 People had demonstrated good cause for the brief delay. 16

17 The Defendant has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 29, 201

18 Decision and Order. In his motion the Defendant argues: (l) that the Court should hav 19 scheduled his first appearance closer to the date on which the complaint was filed, (2) that th 20 court erroneously determined that he asked for a continuance at his first appearance, and (3) tha 21 the Court's Decision and Order conflicts with a decision previously issued by the same court. 22

23 The Defendant presents no new evidence to supports his claims.

24 A Motion for Reconsideration serves a limited purpose as it is not an appeal. Federalla 25 restricts reconsideration to those motions that present "compelling reasons,' such as a change i 26 the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was erroneous." us. v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724, 73 27

28 (3rd Cir. 2010). This is because a motion for reconsideration does not exist to "secure a rehearin

Page 2 of5 on the merits with regard to issues already decided." Us. v. Demosthene, 326 F.Supp.2d 531 2 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Guam law follows similar logic by making explicit the fact that, "N 3 motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made i 4 support of or in opposition to the original motion." Super. Ct. of Guam Local Rule CVR 7.1 (i). 5

6 All of the evidence currently presented by the Defendant was previously available to th

7 Court when it issued the June 29, 2012 Decision and Order. The Defendant's initial arraignmen 8 was timely held. In People v. Rasauo ('Rasauo IF) the Supreme Court established a bright lin 9 rule that a Defendant must be arraigned within sixty days of the filing of the complaint. 2011 10

11 Guam 14. The complaint against the Defendant was filed on December 28, 2011, a summon

12 was issued on January 4, 2012, and the initial arraignment was held on February 15, 2012. Th 13 initial arraignment date of February 15, 2012 was within the sixty day deadline established b 14 Rasauo II. 15 The Court has already determined that when the Defendant's initial arraignment wa 16

17 rescheduled, it was done for good cause. The second hearing, where the Defendant was formall

18 arraigned, was held beyond the sixty day Rasauo II deadline. To be specific, the Defendant wa 19 arraigned seventy-seven days after the filing of the complaint. However, the Supreme Co 20 made clear that an arraignment could be held beyond sixty days where good cause for the del a 21 is demonstrated. Id. at ~14. The Defendant attended his initial appearance without counsel, th 22

23 court rescheduled the hearing so that the Defendant could obtain legal counsel, and th

24 Defendant consented to the modified arraignment schedule offered by the Court. The seventee 25 day delay beyond the Rasauo II deadline was made with the Defendant's consent and for th 26 Defendant's benefit. 27

Page 3 of5 The Court did not find that the Defendant requested a thirty day continuance. In th 2 Decision and Order issued on June 29, 2012 the Court held that "the Defendant implicitly waive 3 his right to a prompt arraignment." The Court's decision was supported by Supreme Co 4 precedent. Specifically that, "A defendant's consent to a postponement may be implied by th 5

6 failure of defense counselor defendant to object at the time the trial is postponed outside th

7 statutory period." Quinata v. Superior Court of Guam, 2010 Guam 8 ,30 (emphasis added). A 8 the initial arraignment hearing the Defendant did not object to the Court's rescheduling of hi 9 arraignment so that he might obtain legal counseL 10

11 In People v. Harper this Court held that the primary reason for the delay in the defendant'

12 prompt arraignment was the defendant's failure to appear. Because the delay was attributable t 13 the actions of the defendant, this Court held that his right to prompt arraignment had not bee 14 violated. CM0380-09. The Defendant now argues that the June 29, 2012 Decision and Order is i 15 conflict with the Court's holding in People v. Harper. The Court disagrees and finds that th 16

17 holding in Harper is compatible with previous and current holding in the Defendant's case.

18 Much as the delay in Harper was attributable to the defendant, the delay in the present case w 19 undertaken with the Defendant's consent and for his benefit so that he might obtain lega 20 counsel. 21

Page40fS CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Defendant has not met the standard fo 3 reconsideration established by Guam law. Accordingly, the court DENIES the Defendant' 4

5 Motion for Reconsideration. Further Proceedings are set for ~. ../. I 2012 at 9am.

8 SO ORDERED, this day of December 2012. 9

12 HONO~tE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 13 Judge, JUperior Court of Guam

Page 5 of5