IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) CRIMINAL CASE No: tMJa,(t~\1 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER JEREMY ROBERTO CEPEDA, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to 11 dismiss, filed October 31, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on November 26, 2012. Assistant 12 Attorney General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant 13 Public Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' 14 briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and
15 Order. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On April 13, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 18 under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor. The complaint was filed contemporaneously 19 with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on June 15, 2011 pursuant to 8 20 GCA Chapter 25. On June 15, 2011, or sixty-three (63) days after the complaint was filed, the 21 Defendant failed to appear and the Court entered a bench warrant to procure his presence. The 22 bench warrant was served on September 13, 2012, and Defendant was released the same day
23 and arraigned on September 19, 2012. 24 On October 31, 2012, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was not 25 promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011 26 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 27 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that judicial delay and the bench 28 warrant constitute good cause to excuse the untimely arraignment and that the complaint can
Page 1 of 4 only be dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or 2 misconduct. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 5 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 6 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies, "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 7 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 8 Jd. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of 9 each case. !d. at~ 14. 10 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 11 Guam law does not describe the specific circumstances that constitute good cause to 12 delay a prompt arraignment. In People v. Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32, the Supreme Court 13 explained that, "the prompt arraignment requirement of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) is a statutory 14 expression of the speedy trial right," and a speedy trial may be delayed by the following good 15 causes: 1) conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen 16 circumstances; and 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 17 Guam 22 ~ 40; Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 18 Guam 8 ~ 36. 19 In this case, the Defendant was arraigned on September 19, 2012, more than 60 days 20 after the complaint was filed on April 13, 2011. An initial delay was caused by the Court's 21 calendar of the citation and notice to appear date as the first appearance which was sixty-three 22 (63) days after the complaint was filed. The Government contends that this delay is excusable 23 for good cause because it is not attributable to prosecutorial delay. The Court does not agree. 24 Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all 25 share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose criminal charges. Jd. (citing 26
Page 2 of 4 Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). 1 For this reason, the 2 untimely arraignment is not excused by 63 days of judicial delay and the complaint shall be 3 dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 2 4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 5 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 6 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 7 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 8 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 9 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 10 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See /d. at ~ 21 (an 11 established rule or forewaming may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 12 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 13 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 14 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 15 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 16 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 17 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 18 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 19 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 20 defendant from the delay. See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); 21 US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. 22 Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 23 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on September 19, 2012, which is more than one 24 (1) year after the complaint was filed on April 13, 2011. The length of this delay may give rise 25
26 1 People v. Julian, 20 12 Guam 26, '1! 22, entered after argument on Defendant's motion, is further instructive: "Fo 27 purposes of prompt arraignment under section 60.10(a) and Rasauo II delay, we attribute the court's delay to th People." !d. at '1!35. 2 28 Subsequent delays were caused by an inability to serve the Defendant with a summons or bench warrant, but thi additional delay is immaterial to the Court's analysis as the 63 day delay is not excusable for good cause.
Page 3 of 4 to a presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 49. The initial 63-day delay was 2 caused by judicial calendaring and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the 3 Government. /d. at ~,l 45-46. The subsequent delay was caused by the inability to locate and 4 serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the information necessary to determine 5 whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and the responsibility for the delay 6 does not weigh in favor of either party. Jd. Most importantly, the complaint caused no 7 oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety or concern before the Defendant was located and 8 served on September 13, 2012, and there is no allegation of actual prejudice in this matter. /d. 9 at ~~ 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional violation and against the 10 Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) CRIMINAL CASE No: tMJa,(t~\1 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER JEREMY ROBERTO CEPEDA, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to 11 dismiss, filed October 31, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on November 26, 2012. Assistant 12 Attorney General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant 13 Public Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' 14 briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and
15 Order. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On April 13, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 18 under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor. The complaint was filed contemporaneously 19 with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on June 15, 2011 pursuant to 8 20 GCA Chapter 25. On June 15, 2011, or sixty-three (63) days after the complaint was filed, the 21 Defendant failed to appear and the Court entered a bench warrant to procure his presence. The 22 bench warrant was served on September 13, 2012, and Defendant was released the same day
23 and arraigned on September 19, 2012. 24 On October 31, 2012, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was not 25 promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011 26 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 27 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that judicial delay and the bench 28 warrant constitute good cause to excuse the untimely arraignment and that the complaint can
Page 1 of 4 only be dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or 2 misconduct. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 5 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 6 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies, "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 7 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 8 Jd. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of 9 each case. !d. at~ 14. 10 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 11 Guam law does not describe the specific circumstances that constitute good cause to 12 delay a prompt arraignment. In People v. Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32, the Supreme Court 13 explained that, "the prompt arraignment requirement of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) is a statutory 14 expression of the speedy trial right," and a speedy trial may be delayed by the following good 15 causes: 1) conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen 16 circumstances; and 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 17 Guam 22 ~ 40; Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 18 Guam 8 ~ 36. 19 In this case, the Defendant was arraigned on September 19, 2012, more than 60 days 20 after the complaint was filed on April 13, 2011. An initial delay was caused by the Court's 21 calendar of the citation and notice to appear date as the first appearance which was sixty-three 22 (63) days after the complaint was filed. The Government contends that this delay is excusable 23 for good cause because it is not attributable to prosecutorial delay. The Court does not agree. 24 Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all 25 share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose criminal charges. Jd. (citing 26
Page 2 of 4 Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). 1 For this reason, the 2 untimely arraignment is not excused by 63 days of judicial delay and the complaint shall be 3 dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 2 4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 5 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 6 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 7 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 8 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 9 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 10 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See /d. at ~ 21 (an 11 established rule or forewaming may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 12 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 13 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 14 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 15 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 16 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 17 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 18 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 19 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 20 defendant from the delay. See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); 21 US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. 22 Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 23 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on September 19, 2012, which is more than one 24 (1) year after the complaint was filed on April 13, 2011. The length of this delay may give rise 25
26 1 People v. Julian, 20 12 Guam 26, '1! 22, entered after argument on Defendant's motion, is further instructive: "Fo 27 purposes of prompt arraignment under section 60.10(a) and Rasauo II delay, we attribute the court's delay to th People." !d. at '1!35. 2 28 Subsequent delays were caused by an inability to serve the Defendant with a summons or bench warrant, but thi additional delay is immaterial to the Court's analysis as the 63 day delay is not excusable for good cause.
Page 3 of 4 to a presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 49. The initial 63-day delay was 2 caused by judicial calendaring and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the 3 Government. /d. at ~,l 45-46. The subsequent delay was caused by the inability to locate and 4 serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the information necessary to determine 5 whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and the responsibility for the delay 6 does not weigh in favor of either party. Jd. Most importantly, the complaint caused no 7 oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety or concern before the Defendant was located and 8 served on September 13, 2012, and there is no allegation of actual prejudice in this matter. /d. 9 at ~~ 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional violation and against the 10 Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice. 11 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the less serious 12 offense of a misdemeanor, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence of clear 13 Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by the Defendant. 14 See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall be 15 dismissed without prejudice. 16 Ill 17 Ill 18 Ill 19 CONCLUSION 20 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and 21 the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to promptly arraign Defendant pursuant 22 to 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 23
28 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Page 4 of4