People v. Cepeda

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 12, 2022
• Docket: CF0064-19
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FiLED SUPERIOR COURT 1 oF GUAM

2 2022 APR 12 PH I: 53

3 QLERHOF y "

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Case No. CF0064-19 8 vs. 9 DECISION AND ORDER (Motion for Reduction of Sentence) VINCENT RODRIGUEZ CEPEDA, 10 DOB: 06/02/1966 11 Defendant. 12

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on March 15, 2022, for a 16 status hearing on Vincent Rodriguez Cepeda's ("Defendant") Motion for Reduction of 17 Sentence. Attorney Jeffery Moots represents Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah 18 Luther represents the People of Guam ("People"). Having considered the arguments and the 19 applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On May 21 , 2019, after a trial by jury, Defendant was found guilty of the following: (1) 22

23 Second Degree Robbery (As a Second Degree Felony), (2) Special Allegation: Possession or

24 Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and (3) Theft of Property (As a

25 Misdemeanor). Verdict Form 1, May 21, 2019, Verdict Form 2, May 21, 2019, Verdict Form

26 3, May 21, 2019. On August 27, 2019, this Court sentenced the Defendant to a term of eight 27

Page 1 of 4 1 consecutive tithe sentence imposed for the Second Degree Robbery, and a term of one year 2 for the Theft of Property to run concurrent to the Second Degree Robbery. Minute Entry, Aug. 3 27, 2019. Defendant appealed his conviction, and on August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of 4

Guam affirmed this Court's Judgment. People v. Vincent Rodriguez Cepeda, 2021 Guam 9. 5

6 On October 8, 2021, Defendant filed the instant motion. Mot. for Sentence Reduction,

7 Oct. 8, 2021. The People filed an opposition. People's Resp. in Opp'n. to Defis Mot. for

8 Reduction of Sentence, Oct. 11, 2021. The Court held a stars hearing and took the parties'

9 arguments under advisement. Minute Entry, Mar. 15, 2022. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Defendant "requests this court to modify his sentence on the count of second degree 12 robbery from his current sentence of eight (8) years to a sentence of Ive (5) years." Mot. for 13 Sentence Reduction at 2. If modified, Defendant's sentence would result Ina cumulative 14 sentence of ten years followed by a parole term of three years. Id. Currently, Defendant's 15

16 sentence is a cumulative sentence ofthirteen years followedby a parole term of three years.

17 Id. at 1. The People argue Defendant's motion "contains no basis or argument for why this

18 Court should revisit its original sentencing decision." People's Resp. in Opp'n. to Def.'s Mot.

19 for Reduction of Sentence at 2. The People further state that "Defendant's criminal record

20 provides more than enough rationale for why his sentence should be maintained." Id. 21 Title 8 G.C.A. § 120.46 states "[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time 22. and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for 23 the reduction of sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within one hundred twenty (120) 24 days after the sentence is imposed, or within on hundred twenty (120) days after receipt by the 25 court of a mandate. issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 26

Page 2 of 4 1 one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of any order Of the Supreme Court of Guam, having 2 the effect holding at judgment of conviction." 3 Defendant does not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed. Rather, Defendant's 4 5 Motion is essentially a "plea for leniency." United States v. Thayer, 857 F.2d 1358, 1360 (9th

6 Cir. 1988). A determination of such a plea for leniency is left to the trial court's discretion.

7 United States v. Eastman, 743 F.2d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1984), United States v. Kouwennoven,

8 602 F.2d234, 238 (9th Cir. 1979).

9 The Court Ends a reduction in sentence is not appropriate. Defendant requests the 10 . . . . Court reduce his sentence but does not provlde any I`€8SOI'11I'1g.aS to why a shorter sentence is 11 warranted. A jury convicted Defendant of Second Degree Robbery with the Special 12 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the ComMission of a Felony and Theft 13 of Property-violent offenses-and the Supreme Court of Guam upheld those convictions and 14 sentences. 15

For Second Degree Robbery, Defendant faced ainaximum of ten years imprisonment, 16

17 pursuant to 9 G.C.A. § 40.20(b). For the Special Allegation, Defendant faced a maximum

18 sentence of twenty-tive years, pursuant to 9 G.C.A. § 80.37(a)(1). Lastly, for Theft of

19 Property, Defendant faced a maximum sentence of one year imprisonment, pursuant to 9

20 G.C.A. §§ 40.20(c), 80.43(a). In total, the Court could have sentenced Defendant to a 21 maximum of thirty-six years of imprisonment, assuming each charge was to run consecutive to 22 the other charges. The Court finds the sentence imposed-thirteen years followed by a parole 23 term of three years-is both necessary and fair, and lesser a sentence would depreciate the 24 seriousness of each offense. 25 The Court notes that Defendant committed the offenses in this case after being released 26

27 from prison on other robbery and theft offenses in Superior Court of Guam Case Nos. CF0431-

Page 3 of 4 1 14 and CF0084-15. Likewise, Defendant is charged with Aggravated Assault (As a Third 2 Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a 3 4 Felony for allegedly assaulting another innate while in custody at the Department of

5 Corrections. Defendant's violent behavior at the Department of Corrections demonstrates that

6 Defendant has not yet been rehabilitated and would benefit from continued incarceration.

7 Given Defendant's history of recidivism, there is an undue risk that he would commit another

8 violent offense if this Court were to impose a lighter sentence. Defendant needs continued

9 correctional treatment that only the Department of Corrections can effectively provide. 10 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for a Reduction of la S sentence. 13

14 APR 1 2 2022 SO ORDERED, this day of 2022.

18 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 19 Judge, Superior Cou1"t of Guam

Page 4 off