People v. Cepeda

Opinion

~H FEE~ -2 ~ 9: 06

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM - -

PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0284-20 GPD Report No. 20-1773 3

vs.

ATANACIO RODRIGO S. CEPEDA, FINDINGS RE COMPETENCY AND aka Atanacio Sablan Cepeda, DECISION AND ORDER aka “Nacio”, (Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to DOB: 10/14/1994 Mental Health Court)

Defendant.

This matter came before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez on December 30, 2020 and

January 4, 2021 for a Competency Hearing. Present via Zoom were Defendant Atanacio

Rodrigo S. Cepeda (“Defendant”); Attorney Kathleen Aguon of the Public Defender Service

Corporation representing Defendant; and Assistant Attorney General Richelle Canto

representing the People of Guam (the “People”). The Court now issues this Decision and Order

DENYING Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to Mental Health Court.

BACKGROUND

At Defendant’s Magistrate’s Hearing, Defendant was committed to Guam Behavioral

Health and Weliness Center (“GBHWC”).’ Commitment Order (July 15, 2020). At his

Arraignment Hearing, Defendant pled not guilty by reason of mental illness. Mi Entry (July

29, 2020). Accordingly, the Court issued an Order for Forensic Evaluation that same day. On

1 On January 14, 2021, the Court released Defendant from his confinement at GBHWC subject to conditions

including, but not limited to, house arrest. Order of Conditional Release (Jan. 14, 2021). FINDINGS RE COMPETENCY AND DECISION AND ORDER CM0284-20; People v. Atanacio Rodrigo S. Cepeda

October 22, 2020, Dr. Juan M. Rapadas (“Dr. Rapadas”) filed his Forensic Evaluation of

Defendant with the Court.

At a Status Hearing on December 3, 2020, Defendant orally motioned the Court to hold

a Competency Hearing and requested that the Court subsequently transfer Defendant’s case to

Mental Health Court. Mi Entry, at 9:40:22 AM (Dec. 3, 2020). The People agreed that the

Court should hold a Competency Hearing but objected to Defendant’s case being transferred to

Mental Health Court based on the fmdings in Dr. Rapadas’ Forensic Evaluation. Id. at 9:40:44

AM.

At the December 30, 2020 Competency Hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Dr.

Rapadas. At the January 4, 2021 Continued Competency Hearing, the Court heard the

testimony of Dr. Ariel Ismael (“Dr. Ismael”) as an expert in psychiatry who has treated

Defendant at Guam Behavioral Health and Weliness Center. Mi Entry, at 9:47:56 (Jan. 4,

2021). After the parties presented their evidence, the Court took the matter under advisement.

FINDINGS REGARDING DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY

Pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 16-002, “[a]ll cases in which

the defendant has been deemed unable to be proceeded against due to their mental state as

determined by the assigned judge pursuant to Title 9 GCA § 7.22 or § 7.37 shall be reassigned

to Mental Health Court for all subsequent proceedings.” Under Title 9 GCA § 7.22(a),

“[m]ental illness, disease or defect, precluding responsibility, is an affirmative defense which

the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.” The “mental illness”

affirmative defense under 9 GCA § 7.22 can be based on either: 1) a finding that Defendant is

currently incompetent to be proceeded against, or 2) a finding that Defendant lacked substantial

capacity to understand or control his actions at the time of the alleged crime. See 9 GCA §~

7.16 and 7.37.

2 FINDINGS RE COMPETENCY AND DECISION AN]) ORDER CM0284-20; People v. Atanacio Rodrigo S. Cepeda

I. Defendant Is Currently Competent to Be Proceeded Against in This Case.

“A defendant is incompetent to be proceeded agaisnt in a criminal action if, as a result of

mental illness, disease or defect, he is unable 1) to understand the nature of the proceedings, 2)

to assist and cooperate with counsel, 3) to follow the evidence, or 4) to participate in his

defense.” 9 GCA § 7.37. In Defendant’s Forensic Evaluation, Dr. Rapadas states: “Mr. Cepeda

is currently competent to be proceeded against based on the forensic clinical interview,

observations of Mr. Cepeda, and current mental status which could be characterized as stable at

this time.” Forensic Eval., at 6 (Oct. 22, 2020). Additionally, Dr. Rapadas noted that Defendant

“still knew the judicial process from beginning to end.” Id.

At the December 30, 2020 hearing, Dr. Rapadas confirmed this finding and added that

he has conducted multiple forensic evaluations of Defendant but has never found him to be

incompetent. Mm. Entry, at 10:59:00 AM (Dec. 30, 2020). Although Dr. Ismael testified

generally about mental diseases and the medications prescribed to Defendant, Dr. Ismael did not

have personal knowledge to testify specifically about Defendant’s mental state or legal

competency. Mi Entry, at 9:47:36 AM (Jan. 4, 2021). Accordingly, the Court will not

consider Dr. Ismael’s testimony when making a finding as to this issue.

Thus, in light of Dr. Rapadas’ findings in the Forensic Evaluation, his testimony at the

Competency Hearing, and the Court’s own observations of Defendant at his hearings, the Court

finds that Defendant is currently competent to be proceeded against in this case.

II. Defendant Did Not Lack Substantial Capacity to Understand or Control His Actions at the Time of the Alleged Crime.

“A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a

result of mental illness, disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or understand

what he was doing, or to know or understand that his conduct was wrongful, or to control his

3 FINDINGS RE COMPETENCY AND DECISION AND ORDER CM0284-20; People v. Atanacio Rodrigo S. Cepeda

actions.” 9 GCA § 7.16. In Dr. Rapadas’ Forensic Evaluation, he states that it is his opinion

“that Mr. Cepeda did not fully lack substantial capacity and he seemed to have some level of

capacity to control his behavior, to understand what he was doing, and to know that his conduct

was wrongful{.]” Forensic Eval., at 7 (Oct. 22, 2020).

Although the Forensic Evaluation indicates that Defendant did have “some limited and

diminishment of his capacity to control his behavior and to fully understand what he is doing,”

at the Competency Hearing, Dr. Rapadas confirmed his finding that he does not believe

Defendant lacked substantial capacity. Forensic Eval., at 7 (Oct. 22, 2020); Mi Entry, at

11:10:38 AM (Dec. 30, 2020).

In light of the Forensic Evaluation, the testimony presented, and the Court’s own

observations of Defendant at his hearings, the Court finds that Defendant did not lack

substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing, or to know or understand that his

conduct was wrongful, or to control his actions at the time of the alleged crime. See 9 GCA §

7.16. Therefore, based on a review of the evidence, the Court deems it able to proceed against

Defendant and finds that a transfer to Mental Health Court would be inappropriate in this case.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to Mental

Health Court.

A Further Proceedings hearing shall be held on February 26, 2021 at 9:45 a.m.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021.

SERVICE VIA EMAIL I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e mailed to

Date ______ ______ -.

f4~ C~vz/ Deputy Clerk, SLl~1or Court of Cuam 4