IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM1134-l0 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ALEXANDER CHUNMOGON, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) 8
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter carne before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed August 5, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on September 9, 2013. An Assistant 12 Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Government and an Assistant Public Defender l3 represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the 14 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 9, 2010, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with 17 driving under the influence of alcohol on or about January 2, 2010. The complaint was filed 18 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on December 19 29, 2010 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. Defendant failed to appear on December 29, 2010 and 20 the Court entered a bench warrant on January, 2011. l\1ore than a year later on May 30, 2012, 21 the bench warrant was served upon Defendant and the Court appointed him counsel and 22 released him that same day. Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012. 23 On August 5, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was not 24 promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011 25 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 26 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that the complaint can only be 27 dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or 28 misconduct.
Page I of 4 DISCUSSION 2 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 3 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 4 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 5 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 6 /d. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of 7 each case. /d. at~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial IO context are instructional for the purposes of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60.1 0. People II v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the following good causes: 1) I2 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and 13 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; 14 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. 15 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012, which is more than 60 days after 16 the complaint was filed on December 9, 2010. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's 17 failure to appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25, and a subsequent delay of more than a year 18 may have been caused by the Superior Court marshals' failure to contact Defendant, or 19 apparently even attempt to serve Defendant with a bench warrant. The court record is devoid of 20 any information explaining this failure on the part of the Superior Court marshals to locate 2I Defendant prior to May 30, 2012. Judicial delay in prompt arraignment is attributed to the 22 Government. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, 23 judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to 24 promptly dispose criminal charges. !d. (citing Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) 25 and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is not excused by more than 26 a year of judicial delay in the service of a bench warrant and the complaint shall be dismissed 27 pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 28 \\\
Page 2 of 4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 2 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 3 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 4 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 5 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 6 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 7 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See !d. at ~ 21 (an 8 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 9 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 10 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 11 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 12 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 13 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors direct whether to 14 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 15 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 16 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 17 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025,2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 18 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326,336-337, 108 19 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012, more than one year after the 21 complaint was filed on December 9, 2010. The length of this delay may give rise to a 22 presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at~ 49. The delay was caused, in part, by the 23 failure to serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the 24 Government. Julian 2012 Guam 26 at ~ 22. Another possible cause for the delay may have 25 been an inability to locate and serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the 26 information necessary to determine whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and 27 the responsibility for the delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at 28 ~~ 45-46. Most importantly, the complaint caused no oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety
Page 3 of 4 or concern before Defendant appeared on October 24, 2012, and there is no allegation of actual 2 prejudice in this matter. /d. at ,, 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional 3 violation and against the Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice. 4 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the relatively less 5 serious misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence of 6 clear Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by Defendant. 7 See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall be 8 dismissed without 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. CM1134-l0 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ALEXANDER CHUNMOGON, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) 8
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter carne before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed August 5, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on September 9, 2013. An Assistant 12 Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Government and an Assistant Public Defender l3 represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the 14 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 9, 2010, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with 17 driving under the influence of alcohol on or about January 2, 2010. The complaint was filed 18 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on December 19 29, 2010 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. Defendant failed to appear on December 29, 2010 and 20 the Court entered a bench warrant on January, 2011. l\1ore than a year later on May 30, 2012, 21 the bench warrant was served upon Defendant and the Court appointed him counsel and 22 released him that same day. Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012. 23 On August 5, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was not 24 promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011 25 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 26 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that the complaint can only be 27 dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or 28 misconduct.
Page I of 4 DISCUSSION 2 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 3 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 4 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 5 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 6 /d. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of 7 each case. /d. at~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial IO context are instructional for the purposes of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60.1 0. People II v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the following good causes: 1) I2 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and 13 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; 14 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. 15 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012, which is more than 60 days after 16 the complaint was filed on December 9, 2010. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's 17 failure to appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25, and a subsequent delay of more than a year 18 may have been caused by the Superior Court marshals' failure to contact Defendant, or 19 apparently even attempt to serve Defendant with a bench warrant. The court record is devoid of 20 any information explaining this failure on the part of the Superior Court marshals to locate 2I Defendant prior to May 30, 2012. Judicial delay in prompt arraignment is attributed to the 22 Government. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, 23 judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to 24 promptly dispose criminal charges. !d. (citing Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) 25 and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is not excused by more than 26 a year of judicial delay in the service of a bench warrant and the complaint shall be dismissed 27 pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 28 \\\
Page 2 of 4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 2 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 3 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 4 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 5 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 6 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 7 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See !d. at ~ 21 (an 8 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 9 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 10 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 11 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 12 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 13 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors direct whether to 14 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 15 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 16 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 17 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025,2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 18 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326,336-337, 108 19 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 4, 2012, more than one year after the 21 complaint was filed on December 9, 2010. The length of this delay may give rise to a 22 presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at~ 49. The delay was caused, in part, by the 23 failure to serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the 24 Government. Julian 2012 Guam 26 at ~ 22. Another possible cause for the delay may have 25 been an inability to locate and serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the 26 information necessary to determine whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and 27 the responsibility for the delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at 28 ~~ 45-46. Most importantly, the complaint caused no oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety
Page 3 of 4 or concern before Defendant appeared on October 24, 2012, and there is no allegation of actual 2 prejudice in this matter. /d. at ,, 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional 3 violation and against the Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice. 4 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the relatively less 5 serious misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence of 6 clear Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by Defendant. 7 See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall be 8 dismissed without prejudice. 9 Ill 10 Ill II Ill 12 CONCLUSION l3 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and 14 the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to promptly arraign Defendant 15 pursuant to 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 16
17 SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2013. 18
21 ( ~-::....___-~--- HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22
Page 4 of 4