People v. Borja

Opinion

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

7 OF GUAM

8 ) Criminal Case No. CF0068-15 9 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

)

10 Plaintiff, )

11 )

vs.

) DECISION & ORDER 12 ROLAND VINCENT BORJA, )

)

13 Defendant. )

14 )

____________________________ )

15

16 INTRODUCTION

17 This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on Defendant Roland 18 Vincent Borja's March 21, 2018 Motion to Reduce Sentence. Assistant Public Defender James 19

20 Spivey, Jr. represents Defendant. Assistant Attorney General James Collins represents the

21 People of Guam. Having considered the arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court 22 issues the following Decision and Order denying Defendant Borja's Motion to Reduce 23 Sentence.

24

25

26 BACKGROUND

27 This matter arises out of Defendant's conviction by jury trial of numerous felonies in 28 the first degree and one misdemeanor. After sentencing, Defendant appealed his conviction to

Page 1 of4

L

IJ

0 Il I ~

the Supreme Court of Guam. The Supreme Court of Guam, in People v. Borja, 2017 Guam 20, 2 affirmed Defendant's conviction. On March 21, 2018, Defendant filed the present motion 3 seeking to reduce his twenty-five year sentence of imprisonment. Acknowledging the severity 4 of his crimes and the effects they had on those involved, Defendant moves this Court for 5

6 leniency and mercy. The People did not file an opposition in response.

7

8 ISSUES

9 Whether the Court will reduce the sentence imposed on Defendant Borja.

IO FACTS

II

I2 1. After a trial by a jury of his peers, Defendant Borja was convicted of the following

13 offenses: First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), First I4 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), two counts of Second I5 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), two counts of Second I6 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), and Child Abuse (As a I7

I8 Misdemeanor).

I9 2. The Court imposed the following sentence on Defendant: 20 a. For charges one and two of First Degree Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree 2I Felony), count one of charge three of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct 22 (As a First Degree Felony), and count one of charge four of Second Degree 23

24 Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), merged for the purpose of

25 sentencing, Defendant is sentenced to twenty five (25) years incarceration;

26 b. For count two of charge three of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 27 First Degree Felony) and count two of charge four of Second Degree Criminal 28 Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), merged for the purpose of

Page 2 of4

sentencing, Defendant is sentenced to ten ( 10) years incarceration, to run 2 concurrent with the sentence above;

3 c. For the offense of Child Abuse (As a Misdemeanor), Defendant is sentenced to 4 one ( 1) year incarceration, to run concurrent with the sentences above.

5

6 d. Defendant shall serve a total of twenty five (25) years incarceration at the

7 Department of Corrections, Mangilao. 8 3. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the validity of his sentence.

9 4. Defendant is 58 years old.

10

11

12 PRINCIPLES OF LAW

13 Motion to Reduce Sentence 14 If the sentence at issue was lawfully imposed, then a Motion to Reduce that sentence is 15 "simply to allow the [trial] court to decide if, on further reflection, the original sentence now 16 seems unduly harsh." U.S. v. Maynard, 485 F.2d 247, 248 (9th Cir. 1973). A Motion to 17

18 Reduce is essentially a motion for leniency, and is "addressed to the discretion of the

19 sentencing court." U.S. v. Eastman, 743 F.2d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1984). 20

21 ANALYSIS

22 Here, Defendant Borja has made a plea of leniency. Defendant's sentence was not 23

24 challenged and there is no determination that the sentence is invalid. After further reflection,

25 the Court determines that the imposed sentence is not unduly harsh and thus, reducing the 26 sentence is not appropriate in this matter. The Court acknowledges Defendant's age, but is 27 without any further considerations to justify a reduction. The crimes Defendant Borja were 28 convicted of were forcible and grievous violations of Guam law. Additionally, instead of

Page 3 of 4

consecutive sentences for the multiple convictions, the Court sentenced Defendant Borja to 2 concurrent sentences. Accordingly, the Court will not reduce Defendant Borja's sentence.

3

4

5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER

6 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Roland Vincent Borja's Motion t 7 Reduce Sentence. 8

9

~day of _ __._~-"--'--+----- 2018.

10

11 SO ORDERED, this

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 4 of 4