People v. Castro

Opinion

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4

5 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) CRIMINAL CASE NO . CF 296-12 6

DECISION AND ORDER

7 V. ) (D efendant ' s Motion to Reconsider)

8 P A T R I C K M. C A S T R O , )

9 DOB: 10/01/1975 )

10 Defendant. )

11

12 INTRODUCTION

13 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on April 14, 2014 on Patrick M.

14

Castro's ("Defendant") Motion to Reconsider. William B. Pole, Esq. represented the Defendant.

15

16 Assistant Attorney General Christopher R. Odoca represented the People o f Guam ("the

17 People " ). Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of

18 the written arguments and legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court issues its 19 Decision and Order DENYING Defendant ' s Motion.

20 BACKGROUND

21

22 The Defendant was indicted on May 11, 2012 with the following charges : ( 1) Theft by

23 Receiving Stolen Property ( As a 2nd Degree Felony); ( 2) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property

24 (As a 2nd Degree Felony); ( 3) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property ( As a 2nd Degre e Felony); and

25 ( 4) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (As a 3rd Degree Felony). Indictment ( May 11, 2012).

26

He was arraigned on May 16, 2012 where he entered a plea of not guilty and asserted his right 27

28 to speedy trial. Super. Ct. of Guam Minute Entry Log No . 14850 ( May 16, 2012). On June 25,

People v. PATRICK M. CASTRO ( CF 296-12) Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion to Reconsider IO U "

2012, the Defendant waived his right to speedy trial. Assertion or Waiver of Speedy Trial & 1

2 Request for Jury of Twelve in Felony Case (June 25, 2012). Although the Court was prepared to

3 go to trial on July 12, 2012, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a resolution. 4 Transcript J DAASCRA (July 12, 2012) at 1:06:13 p.m. The Defendant agreed to plead guilty to 5 two counts of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (As a 2d Degree Felony) in exchange for his 6

cooperation against Irvin White, the def endant in CF 8 3 7 -1 2 . Id. a t 3 : 0 3 : 0 9 p . m . T he p l e a 7

8 agree ment wa s filed on Ju ly 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 .

9 On Decemb er 10, 2012, the Defendant informed the Court that he could not continue 10 fo r wa r d wi t h h i s p l e a agreement and that he wished to have another attorney assigned to his 11

ca se. T ra nscript J D A A S C R A (De c. 10 , 2 0 1 2 ) a t 10:27:33 a . m. O n February 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 , the 12 Office of the Public Defender filed its Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, and that 13

14 same day, the People filed its Non-Opposition to Motion. Eventually, this case was assigned to

15 Attorney Pole on July 9, 2013. Notice of Court Appointed Counsel (July 10, 2013).

16 On August 29, 2013, the Defendant filed his Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement Pursuant 17

to Contract Law, and on September 17, 2013, the Defendant filed his Motion to Vacate Plea 18

19 Agreement Pursuant to the Plea Not Be ing Made Voluntarily, Knowingly, and Intelligently. The

20 People filed their opposition on October 22, 2013, and this Court heard the matter on December 21 23, 2013. This Court subsequently issued its Decision and Order on February 23, 2014 denying 22 both of D efend ant's Motions.

23

The Defendant filed his Motion to Reconsider on March 4, 2014 and the People filed its 24

25 opposition on March 31, 2014. This Court heard oral arguments on April 14, 2014 and placed

26 the matter under advisement. Having considered the arguments set forth by both parties, this 27 Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's Motion.

28

People v. PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296-12 ) Page 2 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion to Reconsider

•

DISCUSSION

1

2 Defendant moves to reconsider his previous Motions to Vacate Plea Agreement pursuant

3 to C R 1.1(d)1, a rgu ing that n e w information ha s co me to light tha t wo u l d w arrant

4 reconsideration. Def.'s M o t . Recons. a t 1 (Ma r. 4 , 2014). T h e D efendant argues tha t the 5 a rresting officer in this ca se, Officer Constantino Faustino ("O fficer Fausti no"), ha d b e e n 6

"accused of falsifying a police report and conduct unbecoming [of] an officer," and that had this 7

8 information been available prior to change of plea, both Defendant's oral st a t e m e n t s a n d h i s

9 eventual waiver would have been challenged. Id. at 1-2. Furthermore, Defendant contends that 10 the validity of his waiver must be reevaluated and that he "could not have knowingly waived his 11

right to a trial if his evaluation of the likely hood [sic] of conviction was based upon evidence 12

13 that could have been suppressed if the truth had been known at the time of the taking of the

14 plea." Id. at 2. The Defendant also stresses that an evidentiary hearing must be set to determine

15 whether ineffective assistance of counsel caused him to enter into the plea agree ment. Id. at 2-3.

16 Lastly, Defendant seeks clarity as to whether this Court , upon issuing its December 26, 2013 17

Decision a nd Order, considered t he plea to be illega l. Id. a t 3 .

18

19 T h e People o p p o se D e fe n d a n t 's Moti on, a rgu ing that the D efendant ha s failed to

20 identify any legitimate grounds for reconsideration. People's Opp'n Mot. at 1 (Mar. 21, 2014). 21 Specifically, the People state that the arresting officer's alleged misconduct in a completely 22 unrelated matter is "not only immaterial, it is wholly irrelevant" in regards to the Defendant's 23

change of plea. Id. at 2. The People also argue that the Defendant's other claims "impermissibly 24

25 r e h a sh a r g u m e n t s a l r e a d y m a d e in suppor t of the original motion, a n d each of which h ave

26 already been addressed by the [C]ourt." Id. at 3.

27

28 Pursuant to Promulgation Order No. PRM 13 -002-0 1, CR 1.1(d) of the Local Rules applies CVR 7.1(i) to criminal matters.

People v. PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296- 12) Page 3 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant' s Motion to Reconsider

The Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam provide the grounds on which a motion 1

2 may be renewed:

3 (1) [A] material difference in fact or law from that presented to the court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been 4 known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or, 5 (2) th e emergen ce of n ew material facts or a ch an ge of law occu rrin g after th e 6 time of such decision, or, 7 (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the 8 Court before such decision.

9 N o mot ion for reconsideration shall in any ma nne r re pe at a n y ora l o r wr i t t e n argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.

10 CR 1.1(d).

11

12 Upon reviewing the arguments set forth by both parties, as well as the relevant legal authority,

13 this Court is of the opinion that reconsideration of the Defendant's previous motions under CR 14 1 .1 (d) wou ld not be a pp ropria te a t this time.

15 T h is Cou rt will first address the D e fe n d a n t 's argu ment regarding the alleged " n e w 16

information." Officer Faustino's subsequent arrest does not constitute a "new material fac t"

17

18 sufficient to warrant reconsideration of Defendant's prior motions to vacate his plea agreement.

19 A material fact is "one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence 20 might affect th e ou tcome." Ba nk o f G u a m v. Flores, 2 004 Guam 25, ¶ 8. Officer Faustino's 21 alleged misconduct occurred over one year after the Defendant's plea agreement was issued.

22

23 Furthermore, this alleged misconduct is in relation to a matter that is separate and distinct from

24 the matter presently before this Court. Therefore, this Court agrees that such information is both

25 imma teria l a nd irreleva nt to the ca se a t ha nd.

26 The Defen d an t also argues that his oral statemen ts ob tain ed at th e time of h is arrest 27

could have b een su p p ressed h ad in formation of Officer Fau stin o's tru th fu ln ess b een k n own, 28

People v. PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296-12) Page 4 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant' s Motion to Reconsider thus invalidating his waiver of his right to go to trial; this Court cannot agree with such logic.

1

2 Evidence obtained as a direct result of an unlawful arrest may be suppressed under the Fruit of

3 the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. People of Guam v. Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12 ¶ 41 (citing Segura v. 4 United Sta tes, 4 6 8 U.S. 7 9 6 , 8 0 4 -0 5 (1984)). Upon reviewing the fa cts of this case, there 5 appears to b e nothing in the rec ord to indica te that the D e fe n d a n t 's ora l statements we r e 6

obtained unlawfully. Furthermore, th e Defen d an t h as failed to cite a n y specific authority to 7

8 support his argument that subsequent police misconduct would create grounds for challenging

9 the lawfulness of an arrest. Therefore, this Court concludes that because it is unlikely that such 10 evidence w ould have been suppressed, the D efendant's subsequent w aiver of his right to a trial 11

was valid.

12

13 Next, the Court will address the Defendant's argument that "the Government has an

14 independent obligation ... to investigate whether Officer Faustino has prejudiced the rights of 15 Defendants in other cases." Def.'s Mot. Recons. at 2 (Mar. 4, 2014). Although Defendant refers 16 to Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), to support this argument, there is a clear distinction 17

between that case and the case presently before this Court. In Kyles, the Court held that 18

19 prosecution has a duty to disclose "known, favorable evidence" if such disclosure would have

20 an impact on the outcome of the case. See Id. at 437-38. In the case presently before the Court, 21 as previously stated, Officer Faustino's misconduct allegedly occurred well over one year after 22 the Defendant in this case delivered his oral statements and waived his right to trial; without 23

more, it would not have been possible, based on this information, for the People to have known 24

25 of Faustino's propensity to be untruthful. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to reevaluate the

26 Defendant's waiver.

27

28

P eople v. PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296-12 ) Page 5 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion to Reconsider

In regards to the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court 1

2 acknowledges that an evidentiary hearing is still necessary to determine whether the Defendant

3 entered into his plea agreement as a direct result of such ineffective assistance. The Defendant 4 stresses that "[i]t would be an abuse of discretion not to conduct an evidentiary hearing." Def.'s 5 Mot. Recons. at 3 (Mar. 4, 2014). In light of Defendant's claim, and in an overabundance of 6

caution, this Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing at the earliest possible convenience.

7

8 Until such time, however, this Court cannot grant Defendant's Motion to Reconsider based on

9 this claim.

10 La stly, this Cou rt will address D e fe n d a n t 's concern a s to the lega lity o f t h e pl ea 11

agreement. D efendant claims that because the pl ea d o e s no t requ ire the P e o p l e to seek 12

13 permission from the Court before withdrawing from the agreement, the plea is illegal. Def.'s

14 M o t . R e c o n s. at 3 (Mar. 4, 2013). This argument was first made in Defendant's Addendum to

15 Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement Pursuant to Contract Law filed on December 26, 2013. The 16 Cou rt d o e s no t agree wi th the D e fe n d a n t 's interpreta tion o f t h e language w it hin the pl ea 17

agreement, nor does this Court find the agreement to be illegal. Once a guilty plea is entered, a 18

19 defendant is typically precluded from withdrawing his plea without first seeking the permission

20 of the court. See Centers v. State, 501 N.E.2d 415, 417 (Ind. 1986). Because it is implied that

21 withdrawal of a plea lies in the discretion of the Court, the omission of such specific language 22 w it hin a pl ea agreement d o e s no t ren der the agreement inva lid. Furthe rmore, " wh i l e the 23

government may not coerce a defendant into an involuntary plea, the government has a wide 24

25 latitude in how it reaches a plea." United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 24 (1st Cir. 2005).

26 Absent evidence of coercion or impropriety on the part of the People in negotiating this plea, 27 the Court finds the plea agreement in this case to be valid.

28

People v. PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296-12) Page 6 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant' s Motion to Reconsider

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reconsider.

1

2 CONCLUSION

3 B y preponderance o f t h e evidence a n d based o n the foregoing reasons, the Cou rt

4 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reconsider.

5 Evidentiary Hearing is scheduled for Z l I Q / 0 4 6

SO ORDERED this 10 day of JULY, 1014.

7

8

9

10

11

HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

14

15

16 > CE VIA COURT BOX 4400ipwIed a that a cwy of the 17 Hereto wasy lwod In the

� 6Aad: . w 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

People v . PATRICK M. CASTRO (CF 296-12) Page 7 of 7 Decision and Order - Defendant' s Motion to Reconsider