People v. Cline & Reyes

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case No. CM369-J 1 4 )

)

5 v. )

DECISION AND ORDER

) re: Motion to Dismiss 6 PAMELA JEAN CLINE and KEILANI )

7 SIMMONS REYES, )

)

8 Defendants. 9

IO INTRODUCTION

II This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on June 19, 2012.

12 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins. Defendant Cline 13 was represented by Assistant Public Defender Suresh Sampath. After considering the matter 14 presented, the Court issues the following decision and order granting the Defendant's motion to 15

16 dismiss because the People have not shown good cause for delay in the arraignment of the

17 Defendants. 18 BACKGROUND

19 On March 23, 2011, a complaint was filed which charged the Defendants with Retail 20 Theft (as a Misdemeanor). On AprilS, 2012, Defendant Cline filed a motion to dismiss the 21

22 complaint with prejudice arguing she was not promptly arraigned.

23 DISCUSSION 24 Under Guam law, a "defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the indictment or 25 information is filed or after the complaint is filed where prosecution by complaint is required 26 by § 1.15." 8 GCA § 60.1O(a). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam held, "unless good 27

28 cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the filing of the complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 , 14 2 (,'Rasauo II"). The Court also held this "standard continues to require a case by case analysis 3 of whether or not the 'specific circumstance' of any given case shows good cause for delay."

4

5 ld

6 Defendant Cline argues the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because she 7 was arraigned beyond the 60-day rule permitted by Rasauo II and there is no showing of "good 8 cause" for the delay. However, the People argue the following: (1) the People retain no control 9 over the court's decision about when to calendar the date on which a defendant is to return to 10

11 court; (2) the Defendants failed to appear; and (3) the Defendants needed to consult with their

12 attorney. 13 Here, the complaint was filed March 23, 2011 and a Summons was issued for both 14 Defendants on May 18,2011 for an arraignment scheduled for June 29, 2011. The Court notes, 15 however, by June 29, 2011 it was already past the 60-day limit. The 60-day speedy arraignment 16

17 deadline set by the Supreme Court of Guam was violated because the Defendants were not

18 promptly arraigned within the 60-day limit. Furthermore, similar to an alleged violation of 19 speedy trial rights, the burden rests with the People to prove that there is good cause to extend 20 the period of arraignment beyond the 60-day rule. State v. Feldhacker, 663 N.W.2d 143, 146 21 (Neb. App. 2003). The arraignment issue is analogous to the speedy trial issue, in the instant 22

23 case, because there must be "good cause" to go beyond the 60-day rule.

24 The People maintain that once a request for a summons is presented the People retain no 25 control over the Court's decision about when to calendar the date on which a defendant is to 26 return to Court. Thus, the People advocate that any delay attributed to the court's calendaring of 27

28 an arraignment should be found to be good cause and not cause the case to be dismissed pursuant to Rasauo II. Guam's Supreme Court however makes it clear that it intended the court 2 and its officers to be subject to the prompt arraignment rule put forth in Rasauo II. Rasauo, 2011 3 Guam 14 ~ 12; see also 8 GCA § 80.S0( a) (It shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers 4 to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice).

5

6 Since the onus is on all judicial officers, in addition to the prosecuting attorneys, to ensure that a

7 defendant is promptly arraigned, the Court holds that the delay created by the Court scheduling 8 the arraignment date after more than sixty (60) days had passed from the filing of the Complaint 9 is not good cause. The Defendants were not promptly arraigned; therefore, this case must be \0

11 dismissed. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14.

12 The Court finds that dismissal should be with prejudice. The Supreme Court of Guam 13 applied the statutory speedy trial time period in Rasauo II. This is significant because when a 14 Defendant's right to a speedy trial is violated the action against that Defendant is dismissed 15 with prejudice. It is not unreasonable to apply the same rule in the instant case.

16

17 Furthermore, similar to Rasauo II where the Defendant, "sought pre-trial relief when he

18 filed a motion to dismiss before the trial court ... [the Defendant is] not required to show 19 prejudice from the delay." 2011 Guam 14 ~ 15. Thus, the Defendants are not required to show 20 that they were prejudiced from the delay in the instant case because the case is in pre-trial 21

stage. The Court reiterates that it is the duty of all courts and judicial officers (including the 22

23 Prosecution) to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree. See 8 GCA § 80.S0(a).

24 Therefore, the Court finds that because (1) speedy trial violations result in dismissal with 25 prejudice; (2) the Defendant does not have to show prejudice from the delay; and (3) it was the 26 duty of all court and judicial officers to promptly arraign the Defendants, dismissal with 27

28 prejudice is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the People have not shown good cause for 3 the delay in the arraignment of either Defendant. Thus, the Court DISMISSES the case with 4 prejudice. Defendants are hereby ordered to submit their respective judgments.

5

6 SO ORDERED, this 9th day of August 2012.

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26