FI LLED
L
1 CLERK GF OF COURT 202!¢SEP -s PHH I:| : II I 2 202~SEP-5 3 supERlo~R SUPERIOR COURT COURT 4 OFGUAM.?"L...
GUAM Q 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO.
NO.CF0551-24 CF0551-24 9
vs.
10 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER II 11 CAMERON DORAN, 12
Defendant.
13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter is before before the the Honorable Honorable Vernon Vemon P. Perez Perez for forthe the limited limitedpurpose purpose of ofaddressing addressing 16 the People of the People of Guam's Guam's ("the ("theGovemlnent")
Government")Statement StatementofofObi section 77 GCA Objection GCA §§ 6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion to 17 Disqualify filed filed August August 23, 23, 2024.
2024.
18 I BACKGROUND 19 On August 12, 12, 2024, Defendant Cameron 2024, Defendant CameronDoran Doran("Defendant")
("Defendant") was indicted with one 20 count of Felony). 1 (Indictment, of Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony).1 (Indictment, Aug.
Aug. 12, 12, 2024).
21 On August 22, 22, 2024, 2024,this thismatter matterwas wasassigned assignedtotoJudge Judge AlbertoE.E.Tolentino.
Alberto Tolentino. See SeeNotice Notice 22 of ofJudge Judge Assignment, Aug. 22, 22, 2024.
2024.
23 On On August August 23, 2024, the 23, 2024, theGovernment Governmentfiled filed aa Statement Statementof of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§6107 6107 and and 24 Motion Motion to Disqualify ("Objection"), ("Objection"), moving moving for forJudge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's recusal recusal in this matter. The this matter.
25 Government moves for Government moves for Judge Tolentino's recusal Judge Tolentino's pursuantoto77G.C.A.
recusal pursuant G.C.A. §§ 6105(a)
6l05(a) because of because of 26
27 l1 On August August 27, 27, 2024, 2024, at Arraignment, Defendant Defendant entered entered aa plea plea of of not not guilty guilty and and waived waived his his right right to a speedy trial.
28 (Minute Entry, Aug. 27, 2024).
v. Doran People v. Case No.
No. CF0551-24 cF0551-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 1 1 of of7 1 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's familial familial relationship with Attorney relationship with Attorney General General Douglas Douglas B. Molyan. 2 B. Molyan.2 See
2 generally, generally, Objection, Aug.
Aug. 23, 23, 2024.
2024.
3 On August August 28, 28, 2024, 2024, Judge Tolentino filed Judge Tolentino tiled his Answer to to Statement Statement of of Objection, Objection, 4 challenging challenging the timeliness of of the the objection objection and and denying denying that that his his recusal recusal is is appropriate appropriate in in this this 5 matter.
matter. See See generally, generally, Answer, Aug.
Aug. 28, 28, 2024.
2024.
6 On On August August 29, 29, 2024, 2024, pursuant pursuant toto 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107, 6107, the the question question of ofwhether whether Judge Judge 7 Tolentino should should be disqualified from continuing continuing to preside preside over over this this mater mater came before this this 8 recusal court. See Notice recusal court. Notice of ofAssignment Assignment of ofRecusal RecusalJudge, Judge, Aug.
Aug. 29, 29, 2024.
2024.
9 DISCUSSION
10 Title 77 G.C.A.
Title G.C.A.section section6105 6105sets setsforth forththe thesubstantive substantivegrounds grounds under under which which aa judge judge must must 11 II be disqualified.
disqualified. Where Where aa judge fails fails to disqualify disqualify him him or or herself, herself, any any party party to to that proceeding may 12 move move to to disqualify disqualify the the judge judge pursuant to77G.C.A.
pursuant to G.C.A. §§ 6107.
6107.
13 13 A. Statement Statement of of Objection 14 14 The Government moves to disqualify Government moves disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in m this this matter matter based based on the the 15 15 following following grounds:
grounds:
16 • • That from 2014 2014 to to 2022, 2022, Judge Judge Tolentino disqualified disqualified himself himself from from cases cases involving Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan as as aa private private attorney attorney on on the the basis basis of the 17 familial relationship relationship that that exists between between them, them;
18 • • That Judge That Judge Tolentino Tolentino stated stated that that disqualification disqualification was was necessary necessary because because 19 Attorney General General Moylan Moylan is is the the father of ofhis his step-children, step-children;
20 20 JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's last Form One-Disqualification One-Disqualification in • • That Judge in this regard was was filed filed 21 on October October 27, 2022, 2022;
22 • the basis That the basisfor for Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's prior prior disqualifications disqualifications hasn't changed, changed;
23 23 • That aa reasonable reasonable person person would presume presume that that Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's personal personal relationship with Attorney General relationship with General Moylan Moylan and his prior years and his prior years disqualifying 24
25
2 2 26 Attached to the Government's Government's Statement Statement of Objection are several several exhibits, including including aa Decision Decision and and Order issued by Judge Elyze M.
Judge Blyze M. Iriarte Iriarteon on June June 4, 2024 in People v.v. Taitingfong, Taitingfong, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. CF0024-24, CF0024-24, and and several several Form 27 One One -- Disqualification Disqualification 77GCA GCA§ §6106 6106memorandums memorandumsissued issuedby byJudge JudgeTolentino Tolentinorecursing recusing himself himself from from cases cases involving involving Attorney AttorneyGeneral General Moylan Moylanwhen whenhe hewas wasininprivate privatepractice practicebased based on on section section 6105(a)
6105(a) up until October 27, 27, 28 2022. 2022.
People v.
v. Doran Case No.
No. CF0551-24 CF055l-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 2 of of7 himself himself from any any matters involving AG matters involving AG Moylan Moylan would would raise raise aareasonable reasonable 1 question about his impartiality about his impartiality and and necessitate necessitatehis his disqualification;
disqualification, 2 • • That Judge Tolentino has Judge Tolentino has been disqualified from presiding presiding over over other other cases cases 3 based on the the above facts, facts; and 4 • • ThatSan San Agustin v. v. v.
v. Superior Cr.
Ct. of ofGuam, Guam, 2024 Guam 2, 2, required the the Clerk 5 of o~ Court Court toto refrain refrain from from assigning assigning cases cases to to Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino once once he he was was disqualified. disqualified.
6 See Objection, Aug.
Aug. 23, 23, 2024.
2024.
7 In In his answer, JudgeTolentino answer, Judge Tolentino sets sets forth forth under underpenalty penaltyof of perjury perjurythe thefollowing following relevant 8 facts:2 facts 9 Moylan'srequest, 6. That at Mr. Moylan's request, aa meeting meetingbetween betweenhim himandand the the undersigned, undersigned, the 10 undersigned's chamber undersigned's chamberstaff, staff, the Administratorof the Administrator of the the Courts, Courts, and andMr.
Mr. Moylan's Moylan's II 11 transition chairperson, chairperson,Mr.
Mr.Wilfred Wilfred Aflague, occurred in Aflague, occurred in December December 2022, 2022;
12 12 7. That 7. That atat this this meeting, meeting, Mr.Mr. Moylan Moylan assured assured me me and and the the other other members members in m attendance that attendance thatheheperceived perceivedno noconflict conflict in his election as the election as the Attorney General General andand 13 1 the the prosecution prosecution of of criminal cases before criminal cases before the undersigned.
undersigned. It It was was agreed agreed that that the 14 14 circumstances underlying my circumstances underlying my recusal recusal in in matters mattersthat thatMr.
Mr.Moylan Moylan was a lawyer no longer longer existed, existed, toto wit:
wit:that thatduring duringmymyterm termas asthe theMagistrate MagistrateJudge Judgeand and as as aa Judge Judge 15 I had routinely routinely recused reused myself myselffrom fromall allmatters matters where where Mr.Mr. Moylan Moylanwas was the the attorney attorney 16 of ofaa party party before before me me on on the the basis basis that he was thethe father father of my minor step-children step-children and that that the the minor minor step-children step-children were were members members of and and resided in in the household the household 17 17 maintained maintained by by me me and and my my wife and and that as of even even date, date, both both step-children step-children have 18 18 now reached majority and majority and adulthood and have been residing have been residing at their own residences 19 19 in in Guam andand inin the the U.S.
U.S. Mainland;
Mainland,
20 20 8. That ThatMr.
Mr.Moylan Moylannever nevermade madean anappearance appearance as as aa lawyer lawyer in in this this case.
21 9.
9. That neither Mr. Moylan nor the neither Mr. the Office of ofthe the Attorney Attorney General General had had ever ever challenged challenged or or objected objected to to me me presiding presiding over overthis this case case until until the the instant instant Statement of Statement of 22 22 Objection Objection and Motion to and Motion to Disqualify filed filed herein.
herein.
23 23 * * *
***
24 24 14.
14. That That my wife wife Doris Doris L.G.
L.G. Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan werewere 25 25 divorced on divorced June 13, on June 13, 1997, andthat 1997, and thatthere therewere weretwo two minor minor children children at at the the time time of of the dissolution of marriage, to wit: Brandon Brandon (born 1990) and Angela 1990) and Angela (born 1992), 1992);
26 26
15
15. .That Thatmymy wife wife and and I have have been been together together since since 2001 2001 and and that that We were mam'ed married 27 civilly civillyinin2005 2005and and eventually eventuallyin inthe theRoman RomanCatholic CatholicChurch ChurchininDecember December2023 2023;, 28 16. 16. That we have five children children inclusive of ofBrandon Brandon and Angela;
Angela,
People v.
v. Doran Doran Case No. CF0551-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 3 of of7 1 17. That since since my my wife wife and II have have been been together together I have have never never observed Mr. Moylan involved in and my wife involved in any any sense sense inin co-parenting co-parenting the the children oftheir children of their marriage as 2 provided with the children have been raised and provided with protection protection and and care care to ensure their 3 healthy development into healthy into adulthood, adulthood, primarily primarily by by my my wife wife and me, andand that that at at 4 present they are in fact fact adults adults able able to to conduct conduct and and make make their own own decisions in life;
life,
5 18. That based upon the the foregoing foregoing averments, averments, the the fact fact that that Attorney Attorney General General Moylan is the biological father of of the the undersigned's undersigned's stepchildren provides no basis 6 for disqualification under for disqualification under 77 GCA GCA §§ 6105(b)
6l05(b) or or that that the undersigned's impartiality the undersigned's impartiality 7 might questioned as might be reasonably questioned as required requiredunder undersubsection subsection(a)(a).
8 (Answer at (Answer at 3-4, Aug. 28, 2024).
9 B. Timeliness Timeliness of of Objection
10 10 The first issue issue before before the the Court Court isis whether whether the the Government's Government's Objection was timely filed,
11 II as Judge Tolentino challenges the the timeliness timeliness of the Government's Objection. (Answer enfs Objection. (Answer at ,-i,-i 9-
at W 9-
12 13). Pursuant 13). Pursuant to to section section 6107:
13 13 The statement of a party objecting to to the Justice Justice or Judge Judge on the ground ofof his or her disqualification shall be presented atat the the earliest earliest practicable practicable opportunity after 14 her appearance his or her appearance and discovery of of the the facts facts constituting constituting the the ground of the 15 15 Justice's or Judge's disqualification, and in any any event event before before the commencement of the commencement of the hearing of any issue of of fact in the action or proceeding before such Justice or 16 16 Judge.
17 17 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107.
6107. "The "Therule rule that that aa request request for for disqualification disqualification should should be be submitted submitted prior prior to to any any 18 18 hearing in the matter before before the the challenged challengedjudge judgerests restson onthe the principle principlethat that aa party may not not gamble gamble 19 19 on a favorable favorable decision. Thus, Thus, aa statement statement of of objection objection isis normally normally timely timely ififitit is is submitted prior 20 20 to any hearing before before the challenged judge judge in the matter."
matter." Van Dex Dax v.
v. Superior Superior Cr.
Ct. of Guam, 21 2008 ,-r 46 2008 Guam 77 11 46 (internal (internalquotation quotationmarks marksand and citation citationomitted).
omitted). "[A]
"[A] statement statement may be 22 22 if aa party untimely if party waits until the eve of of trial trial to to request request disqualification disqualification based on information 23 23 earlier." Id.
made known months earlier." Id (citing People v. Pariah, Panah, 107 107 P.3d 790, 824 (Cal. 2005)).
24 24 Here, the the Government's Government's Statement Statement of of Objection was filed prior to to the the commencement commencement of of 25 the hearing of any issue issue of of fact fact in in the the action actionor orproceeding proceeding before before Judge Judge Tolentino.
Tolentino. The case was 26 26 assigned to Judge Tolentino on August 22, 2024, 2024, and and the the Government's Government's Statement of of Objection 27 following day, August was filed the following August 23, 23, 2024.
2024. According According to to the the Court's Court's case case management management system, 28
v. Doran People v. Doran Case No. CF0551-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of7 of l at the time of offiling filingofofthe theObjection, Objection,no nohearings hearingshad hadbeen beencalendared calendared or or heard heard before before Judge Judge 2 Tolentino inthe Tolentino in the instant matter. However, instant matter. However,the theCourt Courtdoes doesnot notfind findthat that the the timeliness timeliness analysis analysis ends ends 3 there there.·The Thefacts factsthat thatform formthe the basis basis of ofthe the Statement Statement of Objection Objection are are not newly discovered discovered to the 4 Government and Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino has has presided presided over over criminal criminal matters matters involving involving the the Government 5 since Attorney General Moylan took office General Moylan office in in January 2023. See January 2023. Answer ,r114 See Answer ("I...
4 ("I ... have have been been a 6 Judge of Judge of the Superior Court of ofGuam Guam since since September September 2021, 2021, and that my and that my docket consists mostly
7 of ofcriminal criminal matters brought broughtby bythe thePeople People of of Guam Guamthrough throughthe theOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General.").
8 It It was not until over over a year later in May 2024 that the theGovernment Government first first moved moved to disqualify disqualify Judge Judge 9 Tolentino. See People Tolentino. People v.
v. Ybanez, Ybanez, et al. (CF0447-23)
(CF0447-23)Dec.
Dec.&&Order Orderatat5,5,Jun.
Jun. 12, (noting the 12, 2024 (noting 10 10 Statement of Objection Statement of Motionto andMotion Objection and toDisqualify Disqualify was wasfiled filed on on May May 1, 2024). The 1, 2024). The Government Government 11 has since since moved to disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in inaa number number of ofcriminal cases, 3 but criminal cases,3 but not not all all of his
4
12 12 criminal docket.
docket.4 Therefore, while Therefore, while the thetimeliness timelinessof fananobjection objectionwould wouldnormally normally be be case specific, specific,
13 13 the circumstances circumstancesof of the the objections objections being being filed filed in in some some but not all cases before Judge cases before JudgeTolentino, Tolentino,
14 14 despite the basis of of all all obi sectionsbeing objections beingsubstantially substantiallythe thesame, same,require requirethe theCourt Courtto toview view them in
15 light light of ofhis his entire entire criminal docket, as all criminal matters arebrought matters are broughtby bythe theOffice Office of of the theAttorney Attorney
16 16 General on behalf General on behalf of of the People of the People "7 GCA Guam. "7 of Guam. GCA§§6105 6105 is is not not intended to 'bestow intended to 'bestow veto veto power power
17 over over judges or to be used used as asaajudge judgeshopping shoppingdevice."'
device."' San San Agustin, 2024 Guam 2,,rii 24 Guam 2, 24 ((citing
18 18 People People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 22,rii 80).
v. Camaddu, 80).
19 19 "Guam "Guam law does not speak speak explicitly explicitly of waiver, but but does require require that that'all 'all parties partiesagree.'
agree'
20 20 Rather than interpreting interpreting 'agree'
'agree' to tomean mean that that the parties must mustexpressly expressly agree agree to to waive waive the judge's
21 disqualification, we held that disqualification, we remaining silent that remaining silent constitutes constituteswaiver, waiver,at atleast leastin in the the context context of of 7
22
23 3 This This Court, for for example, example, has has been assigned assignedas asrecusal recusaljudge judgefor forthe theinstant instantmatter matter(CF055 (CF055l-24),People l-24), People v. Buchun, Buchun, (CF0458-24), (CF0458-24), People People v. Rik at (CM0193-24), Rikat (CMOI93-24), People v.
v. Ada Ada (CF0520-24), People v.v. Timothy (CM0229-24), People 24 v. Romolor Romo/or (CF0391-24), and People v. v. Quichocho (CM0249-24).
(CM0249-24). The TheStatement Statement of ofObjection Objection filed filedinineach each case case is substantially the same. substantially the same. Judge Tolentino's Answer also Judge Tolentino's refers to also refers to objections objections being being filed tiled in People v. Mantanona 25 (CM0203-24); (CM0203-24); People v.v. Babauta Babita (CF0443-24), (CF0443-24);People Peoplev.v. Rabago Rabago (CF0423-24);
(CF0423-24); and and People v.v.Alipich Alipich (CF0449-24).
26 ,r ..
(Answer 1124) 4 27 27 Judge asserts in Judge Tolentino asserts in his that "if his Answer that there truly "if there truly is is concern concern with with the the undersigned's undersigned's impartiality impartiality or appearance of of partiality then then by by movant's movant's logic the disqualification logic the disqualification should should have have extended extended to to the the undersigned's entire 28 criminal docket of of pending and post-adjudication post-adjudication further furtherproceedings." (Answer 1134).
proceedings." (Answer ,r
People v.
v. Doran Case No.
No. CF0551-24 CF055l-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 of7 of 1 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§6l05(a), 6105(a),'to'toavoid avoidthe thepossibility possibilityofofparties partieslying lyingininwait, wait,raising raisingthe therecusal recusal issue issue only only 2 after learning the court's learning the court'sruling ruling on on the the merits."'
merits."' People v. Win, Wia, 2020 Guam Guam 17 ,r 28 17 11 28 (internal (internal
3 alterations andcitations alterations and citationsomitted).
omitted).In Inthe thecontext contextof of 77G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6l05(b), 6105(b), the the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of
4 Guam adopted adoptedthe the"silence-as-wavier"
"silence-as-wavier" rule on a case-by-case case-by-casebasis.
basis. Id.
Id at ,r 30. The at 1130. The "silence-as-
"silence-as-
s 5 waiver" includes waiver" failure to includes failure to object objectbased based on on information information previously previouslyknown knownto to the the parties parties through through 6 separate Id.atat'll,r27 litigation. Id separate litigation. 27 (finding (findingthat thatthe thesilence-as-waiver silence-as-waiverrule rule rendered rendered the the defendant's defendant's 7 obi sectionwaived objection waivedand anduntimely untimelybecause becausethe thedefendant defendantaware awareof ofthe thedisqualification disqualification issue through
8 his counsel's involvement involvement in in other criminal criminal cases).
9 In his his Answer, Answer, Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino states states that that he he.,and andAttorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan met in
10 10 December 2022 with December 2022 with court court administration andstaff administration and staffwhereby whereby"[i]t "[i]t was was agreed agreed that that the the 11 11 circumstances underlying[Judge circumstances underlying [JudgeTolentino's]
Tolentino's] recusal matters that recusal in matters thatMr.
Mr. Moylan Moylan was a lawyer
12 12 no longer existed." (Answer ,r 7).The (Answer117). TheGovernment Governmenthas hasnot notcontested contestedthis this fact factin inthis this matter matter nor 13 13 in any of the the other cases assigned to cases assigned to this thisrecusal recusalcourt.
court. Thus, Thus, Attorney General General Moylan Moylan appears appears 14 14 to have waived any conflict waived any conflicton onbehalf behalfofofthe theGovernment Governmentprior priortotothe thestart startofofhis histerm termin inJanuary January 15 15 2023. At 2023. Atthis time, the this time, Court isis unaware the Court unaware of ofany any objection objection set set forth forth by by the the Government Government to to Judge Judge 16 16 Tolentino presiding presiding over over any any criminal criminal matter matter prior to to People People v.
v. Ybanez, Ybanez, CF0447-23, on May 1, CF0447-23, on 1, 17 17 2024. 5 The Government 2024.5 Government therefore did not move to to disqualify disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino in in any any criminal criminal 18 18 matter for sixteen months matter for months after afterAttorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan took office office (January 2023 to (January 2023 to April
19 19 2024). The TheGovernment Governmenthas has not not presented presented any newly newly discovered discoveredfacts facts or orchange change in in circumstances circumstances 20 20 relating to the familial relationship relationship between Judge Judge Tolentino and Attorney General Moylan Moylan that that 21 renderAttorney would render Attorney General GeneralMoylan'
Moylan'ss December December 2022 waiver of 2022 waiver of any anyconflict conflict moot.
moot. The Court
22 further notes notes that thatwhile while the the issue issueof of Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency competency was was first first addressed addressed inPeople People 23 23 v.
v. Aguon, CMol45-2l CM0145-21ininSpring Spring2024, 2024,ititwas wasthrough through aa motion motion filed filedby bythe thedefendant, defendant, not not the the 24
25 5 The Government Government has has not not shown shown that that itit has objected to Judge Tolentino presiding overover any any criminal criminal matter matter prior to 26 People v. Ybanez.
Ybanez. The The Court Court acknowledges acknowledges that that on on May May 24, 24, 2024 2024 (twenty-three (twenty-three days days after after the filing of of an objection in Ybanez), Ybanez), the Government orally agreed with Defendant Taitingfong Taitingfong in CF0024-24 that that Judge Tolentino Tolentino was 27 disqualified from presiding over her case in light of the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General Moylan. See People v. v. Taitingfong Taitingbng (CF0024-24) Dec. & Order at 4 fn. fn. 1, l, Jun. 4, 2024.
2024. ItIt does does not not appear 28 that the Government Government itself itself also filed an Objection to Judge Tolentino Tolentino presiding presiding in in that matter. See id.
id
People v. Doran Case No.
No. cF0551-24 CF0551-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of of77 1 Government, and in Government, and in the the context context of of a Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify the the Prosecutor Prosecutor and not a ruling ruling on a
2 Statement of Objection Statement of Objection to to Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency.
competency. See See Dec.
Dec. & Order Order at 4-5, 4-5,People v, v.
3 Aguon Aguon (CMOl45-21), (CM0145-21),Apr.
Apr.5,5,2024 2024("On ("OnMarch March1,1,2024, 2024,the theCourt Courtheard heard new new arguments the arguments on the 4 Motion Motion to to Withdraw the Prosecutor.
Withdraw the Prosecutor. There, There, in addition additionto to the theissue issueof ofAAG AAG Olan's alleged
5 statements, Defendant asserted there there had hadbeen beenan anundisclosed undisclosedfamilial familial relationship relationship between Judge Judge
6 Douglas Moylan Tolentino and Douglas Moylan ...").
... ").At At thethe time of of time that Decision that Decisionand andOrder Orderin in CM0145-21, CM0145-21, 7 Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino had had already alreadyrecused reused himself himself from from the the matter, matter, albeit on different grounds.
grounds. See See 8 id at id at 2.
2. In Inlight lightofofthe theforegoing, foregoing,the theCourt Courtfinds finds that the Government's that the Govenlment's silence silence for for over a year, year,
9 despite being aware aware of the facts forming the basis of the basis of the d1squalification, disqualification, ai~ounts amountstotoaawaiver waiverof of
10 any objection any objection to Judge Tolentino to Judge Tolentino presiding presidingover overcases casesinvolving involvingthe theOffice Office of of the Attorney the Attorney 11 II General based General based on the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Tolentino and Judge Tolentino Attorney General and _Attorney General 12 12 Moylan.
13 13 CONCLUSION 14 14 foregoing reasons, For the foregoing reasons, the the Court hereby hereby DENIES DENIES the the Government's Statement of 15 15 Objection and Motion to Disqualify. The TheCourt Court returns returns the the matter matter to Judge Tolentino for for further further 16 16 disposition. 17 17
18 18 IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 day day of of September, 2024.
September, 2024.s~HA 19 19
20 20 I
21 21 HONORABLE VERNON P. p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22
23 23 senvlce Sl!llVICI!WA VIAe-mAIL l!-MAIL •- acknowledge acknowlt>dge that electron1< en electronic that an Com Co~ of the Orig»r\a\ oft:""° 011g,na• was i,,;-a'! I!'e mauled to ma1ted to
24 24 t'v,./,"/'l-t Af, I Ivf-H/¥' AA, »1 .
25 25 Date_OJ•r:i9 Da\e.q ' F U l Tirne.
fume.
/;),(//?~ /%m' (Z»L,Z4,~ 26 26 //lbw/ (',. ¼#1 Dep'-'f'Y clerk Deputy cte,k. Super-of \uper,or Court of Guam Court at Guam 27 27
28 28
People v. People v. Doran Doran Case No. Case CF0551 -24 No. CF0551-24 Decision and Decision and Order Order
Page 77 of7 Page of