F; LED
CLER!{ OF COUF{T
2025 JUL 29 PM 3: 20
2
3
4
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0511-20 7 ) GPO REPORT NO. 20-32293 Plaintiff, )
8 )
vs. )
9 ) DECISION & ORDER ) RE. PEOPLE'S MOTION TO REVOKE ) DEFENDANT'S PROBATION JOSEPH KENSTER EHDER aka 11 )
Joseph Ken Ehder; aka Joseph Kenster )
12 Elider, ) DOB: 11/22/1991 )
13 Defendant. ))
14 ---------------- 15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on April 3, 2026, for a 16 Revocation Hearing. Defendant Joseph Kenster Ehder ("Defendant") was present with counsel 17 Peter Sablan. Assistant Attorney General Martin Remming was present for the People of Guam 18
19 ("People"). During the hearing, the Court heard the parties' arguments on the People's Motion to
20 Revoke the Defendant's Probation ("Motion to Revoke"). Following the hearing, the Court took 21 the matter under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, 22 CVR 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CR I.I of the LOCAL RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM.
23
24 Having duly considered the parties' briefings, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court
25 now issues this Decision and Order GRANTING the People's Motion to Revoke the Defendant's 26 Probation.
27
28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20
BACKGROUND
2 The Defendant was charged with Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) and Resisting
3 Arrest (As a Misdemeanor) on December 26, 2020. See Magis. Compl. (Dec. 26, 2020). On 4 November 22, 2021, the Defendant entered a Deferred Plea of Guilty to Family Violence (As a 5 Misdemeanor). See Order After Hearing (Dec. 2, 2021). The Court deferred acceptance of the 6 Defendant's guilty plea for one year and ordered the Defendant to comply with the terms of the 7
8 Deferred Plea Agreement. Id at 1-2. As part of the Deferred Plea Agreement, Defendant
9 acknowledged and understood that the maximum sentence for misdemeanor family violence is
one year of incarceration and up to a $1,000 fine. See Deferred Plea Agreement at 1 (Dec. 2, 11 2021). The Agreement also required the Defendant to report to Client Services and Family 12
13 Counseling ("CSFC") for intake and assessment; follow all treatment recommendations,
14 including behavioral-health programming through Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center 15 ("GBHWC"), if recommended; check in with Probation once a month or as determined by 16 Probation; pay $80 in court costs; complete an alcohol assessment at New Beginnings and follow 17 treatment recommendations; submit to drug and alcohol testing as determined by Probation; obey 18
19 all federal and local laws; surrender firearms and firearms permits; and refrain from harassing,
20 assaulting, or threatening the victim. Id. at 1-2. See also Order After Hearing (Deferred Plea 21 Agreement Entered] (Dec. 2, 2021).
22 The Order After Hearing further provided that if the Defendant failed to comply with the 23 Deferred Plea Agreement, and if the Court found that he violated its terms, the Court could accept 24
25 and enter the Defendant's guilty plea and sentence him accordingly. Order After Hearing at 2.
26 However, if the Defendant faithfully complied with the terms and conditions of supervision, the 27 case would be dismissed and the arrest expunged from the Defendant's record. Id.
28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM05 l l-20 Page 2 of IO
A. The Defendant's multiple violations during deferred probationary supervision
2 During the Defendant's term of superv1s10n, the Probation Services Division 3 ("Probation") filed four violation reports. Probation also filed an informational report after the 4
5 Defendant was indicted in a separate felony case, Superior Court of Guam Case No. CF0194-25.
6 Informational Report Re: New Arrest (Mar. 31, 2025). 7 For the first violation, Probation reported that the Defendant failed to complete an intake 8 and assessment with CSFC; failed to complete an intake and assessment with GBHWC; failed to 9 make any payments toward his $80 court cost balance in accordance with his payment plan; and
11 failed to report monthly to Probation as ordered in December 2021 and January 2022. First
12 Violation Report (Feb. 7, 2022). He had last reported to Probation on November 23, 2021. Id 13 For the second violation, Probation reported the same allegations contained in the First 14 Violation. Second Violation Report (Aug. 26, 2022). Specifically, Probation informed the Court 15 that Defendant had not yet completed an intake and assessment with either CSFC or GBHWC;
16
17 had made no payments toward his $80 court cost balance; and had still not reported to Probation
18 since November 23, 2021. Id The Court issued a warrant of arrest based on the second violation, 19 with bail affixed at $2,000. Warrant ofArrest (Sep. 1, 2022). After the Defendant's return on the 20 warrant, the Court imposed a one-day sentence as a sanction, ordered the Defendant to check in 21
22 with Probation on release, and extended his probationary period to September 20, 2024. Minutes
23 ofHr'g on Return of Warrant of9/21/2023 at 2:31:12 PM to 2:33:15 PM (Sep.21, 2023). 24 For the third violation, Probation reported that the Defendant: 25 Failed to report weekly in person to the Probation Office. The defendant last 26 reported on September 22, 2023. Attempts to contact the defendant via phone on October 11, 12, and 17, 2023 have been unsuccessful. A home visit was conducted 27 on October 16, 2023 at 202 Maite Plaza Robat Street, Maite. A notice was posted 28 on apartment 202 which stated the occupants were not tenants and must leave the unit.
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20
Third Violation Report (Oct. 20, 2023). The Court issued a warrant on the third violation, with
2 bail affixed at $500. Warrant ofArrest (Jan. 16, 2024). The warrant was outstanding for over one
3 year. Finally, on February 11, 2025, a Return of Warrant Hearing was held, and the Defendant 4 was released the same day with orders to report to probation and to complete his conditions of 5 probation. Minutes of Hr 'g on Return of Warrant of2/l l /2025 at 10:05 :3 8 AM to 10:06:07 AM 6
(Feb. 11, 2025). Specifically, the Court ordered the Defendant to report to Probation, complete 7
8 an assessment with CFSC and GBHWC, and extended his term of probation for another year to
9 February 10, 2026. Id. at 10:03:21 AM to 10:06:07 AM. 10 Despite the repeated instructions and multiple chances given to the Defendant, a Fourth 11 Violation was filed wherein Probation reported that the Defendant:
12
13 Failed to report to the Probation Office upon his release from the Department of Corrections on February 11, 2025. The defendant was instructed by the Court to 14 report to the Probation Office no later than 10 am on February 12, 2025 but failed to report. According to a male individual, the defendant does not reside at 13 5 Pugua 15 St. Mangilao (the location where the defendant was picked up on a warrant on 16 January 29, 2025).
17 Fourth Violation Report (Feb. 19, 2025). The Court issued yet another warrant of arrest, with bail
18 affixed at $2,000. Warrant ofArrest (Mar. 7, 2025). 19 On March 31, 2025, Probation filed an Informational Report advising the Court that the 20 Defendant had been indicted in a new case, Criminal Case No. CF0194-25. Informational Report 21
22 Re: New Arrest (Mar. 31, 2025). The report stated that the Indictment charged the Defendant with
23 Complicity to Commit Aggravated Murder (As a First Degree Felony), Complicity to Commit 24 Murder (As a First Degree Felony), Complicity to Commit Arson (As a Third Degree Felony), 25 Complicity to Commit Obstructing Government Function (As a Misdemeanor), and Complicity 26 to Commit Destruction of Evidence (As a Misdemeanor), and that the Defendant had been 27
28 committed on $100,000 cash.bail in that matter. Id.
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20
The People filed the instant Motion to Revoke on April 4, 2025. The Defendant filed his
2 Opposition to the Motion for Revocation of Probation ("Opposition") on April 29, 2025. The
3 Defendant argued that probation serves a rehabilitative purpose; that revocation should be a last 4 resort; that he had not harassed, assaulted, or threatened the victim in this case since the 5 underlying 2020 incident; and that treatment in the community would be more effective than 6
7 confinement. Opp'n at 1-3 (Apr. 29, 2025). He requested another opportunity to complete
8 probation. Id. at 3.
9 A Revocation Hearing was held on April 3, 2026. The People argued inter alia that the 10 Defendant had made no progress on completing his conditions of probation since 2021, had not 11 attended treatment, and had been charged in CF0l 94-25, forwhich he was detained at the DOC.
12
13 Revocation Hr 'g Mins. at 11 :44:00 AM to 11 :44:40 AM (Apr. 3, 2026). The Defendant requested
14 dismissal and expungement and stated that it was difficult for him to get around. Id at 11 :44:51 15 AM to 11 :46:04 AM. After hearing the parties' arguments, the Court took the Motion under 16 advisement. Id at 11 :47:49 AM.
17 DISCUSSION
18
19 If the court finds that the Defendant has "inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial
20 requirement imposed as a condition of the order," it may revoke probation and sentence or 21 resentence the offender. 9 GCA § 80.66(a)(2). If a court chooses to revoke probation, the court 22 may sentence the defendant· to any sentence that it may have originally imposed. 9 GCA § 23
24 80.66(b). However, it shall not revoke probation for a defendant's violation of a condition unless
25 the court determines that revocation "will best satisfy the ends of justice and the best interests of
26 the public" under all circumstances. 9 GCA § 80.66(a)(2). 27
28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20
The Supreme Court of Guam held that "probation is a favor granted by the state, not a
2 right to which a criminal defendant is entitled." People v. Camacho, 2009 Guam 6 ,i 26 (quoting
3 Parker v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)). To revoke a defendant's probation, 4 the court must make two determinations. First, the court must "make a factual determination that 5 a violation of a condition of probation has actually occurred." Id. ,i 27 (quoting Parker, 676 6
N.E.2d at 1085). If the violation is proven, then the court must "determine if the violation warrants 7
8 revocation of probation." Id.
9 A. The Defendant repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to probation and by failing to complete them.
11 The standard for determining whether a probationer violated a condition of probation is
12 that "the evidence and the facts be such as reasonably necessary to satisfy the judge that the 13 probationer's conduct has not been as required by the conditions of probation." Camacho, 2009 14 Guam 6 ,i 30 (quoting People v. Angoco, 1998 Guam 10 ,i 7). When facing revocation, "the 15 defendant bears the burden of showing an excuse for failure to comply with the condition." Id.
16
17 (quoting State v. Peters, 609 A.2d 40, 43 (N.J. 1992)).
18 In this case, the Defendant accumulated four violation reports during his deferred 19 probationary term. The Court can factually determine that the violations occurred after reviewing 20 Probation's reports and the Court's own record of events, as well as the Defendant's admissions 21
22 to the violations during each violation hearing or return of warrant hearing. The Deferred Plea
23 Agreement required the Defendant to report to CSFC for intake and assessment, follow treatment 24 recommendations, check in with Probation once a month or as determined by Probation, pay $80 25 in court costs, undergo an alcohol assessment at New Beginnings, obey all laws, and refrain from 26 harassing, assaulting, or threatening the victim. The violation reports establish that the Defendant 27
28 failed to complete the CSFC and GBHWC intake assessments, failed to make any payments
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM051 l-20 toward court costs, and failed to report to Probation for extended periods, including immediately
2 following the Court's order to do so each time his warrants of arrest were canceled.
3 The Defendant did not materially dispute the core reporting and treatment violations. 4 Indeed, he had admitted to each instance of the violations. Instead, his written Opposition 5 requested another opportunity to complete probation, and at the April 3, 2026 hearing, the 6
7 Defendant stated that it was difficult for him to get around. That explanation does not excuse the
8 full course of noncompliance reflected in the record. The Defendant stopped reporting almost 9 immediately after the Deferred Plea Agreement was entered; he remained noncompliant through
the second violation; he failed to report weekly after the Court gave him another opportunity and 11 extended supervision; and he again failed to report after being released from confinement in 12
13 February 2025, in blatant violation of the Court's oral order and admonishment. Based on the
14 violation reports, Probation's statements at the Revocation Hearing, and the parties' arguments, 15 the Court finds that the Defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation on several 16 occas10ns.
17 B. The Defendant's violations warrant revocation of probation.
18
19 With regard to probation revocation, the Supreme Court of the United States has noted
20 that "the State clearly has an interest in punishment and deterrence, but this interest can often be 21 served fully by alternative means ... [T]he state is not powerless to enforce judgments against 22 those financially unable to pay a fine. For example, the sentencing court could extend the time 23
24 for making payments, or reduce the fine, or direct that the probationer perform some form oflabor
25 or public service in lieu of the fine." Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 671-72 (1983) (internal
26 citations and quotations omitted). 27
28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20
As mentioned earlier, the Court may revoke probation if it finds that the probationer has
2 "inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed as a condition of the order."
3 9 GCA § 80.66(a)(2). In other words, a probationer's violation warrants revocation when the 4 violation upsets the intent of the probation conditions. In Camacho, the Supreme Court of Guam 5 held that the probationer's failure to report for drug testing was serious enough to warrant 6
7 revocation because the violated condition related directly to treatment. Camacho, 2009 Guam 6
8 ,r 32. Although the defendant in Camacho also failed to pay a fine, the Supreme Court reasoned 9 that failure to pay alone was not as serious as failing to report for drug testing where the defendant IO had been convicted of drug-related offenses and drug testing was imposed to ensure sobriety. Id ll Here, the Court does not revoke probation based on the Defendant's nonpayment of court 12
13 costs alone. The Court is mindful that the Deferred Plea Agreement did not impose the $1,000
14 maximum fine, and the Court noted at the hearing that the Defendant's remaining financial 15 obligation was the $80 in court costs. The more substantial violations are the Defendant's repeated 16 failures to report to Probation and to complete the intake and treatment requirements that were 17 central to the Deferred Plea Agreement. Those reporting and treatment conditions were not 18
19 technical formalities. They were the mechanisms by which Probation could monitor the
20 Defendant, connect him with services, ensure compliance with family-violence-related treatment 21 requirements, and protect the victim and the public while giving the Defendant the opportunity to 22 earn dismissal and expungement of this case.
23
24 The Defendant requested continued probation, citing rehabilitation and arguing that
25 confinement should be a last resort. Opp'n at 1-3. The Court agrees that probation is intended to
26 promote rehabilitation where possible. But rehabilitation through probation requires the 27 Defendant to maintain contact with Probation and actually participate in the services ordered by 28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20 the Court. The record shows the opposite. The Defendant failed to report monthly soon after the
2 Deferred Plea Agreement was entered; failed to complete the initial assessments necessary to
3 begin treatment; failed to report from December 2021 through July 2022; failed to report weekly 4 after supervision was extended; could not be reached by phone or located during a home visit in 5 October 2023; and failed to report immediately after his February 2025 release despite a direct 6
7 order from the Court.
8 The Court also provided the Defendant with multiple opportunities short of revocation.
9 The Court deferred acceptance of his guilty plea, released him after prior warrant proceedings,
directed him to check in with Probation, extended his probationary period, and continued the June 11 27, 2025, revocation hearing while ordering him held to receive credit. Despite those 12
13 opportunities, the Defendant had made no meaningful progress on the conditions that remained
14 central to the Deferred Plea Agreement. At the April 3, 2026, hearing, the People argued that the 15 Defendant had made no progress since 2021, had not attended treatment, and was charged in a 16 new case, Criminal Case No. CF0194-25, for which he was facing serious charges and was 17 detained at DOC. The Court does not adjudicate the pending charges in CFO 194-25 in this 18
19 Decision and Order; nevertheless, the pending prosecution and the Defendant's continued
20 detention in that case reinforce the Court's conclusion that, even if the Court were to grant him 21 another opportunity to complete the conditions of his Deferred Plea Agreement, he would be 22 unable to do so due to his continued confinement in the new case.
23 Unless the Court determines that revocation "will best satisfy the ends of justice and the 24
25 best interests of the public" under all circumstances, the Court shall not revoke probation for
26 violating a probationary condition. 9 GCA § 80.66(a)(2). Here, the Defendant's repeated 27 reporting and treatment violations defeated the rehabilitative purpose of the Deferred Plea 28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM05 l l-20
Agreement and left Probation unable to supervise him effectively. The Court has attempted lesser
2 alternatives over a period of years, but the Defendant has not complied with the basic conditions
3 necessary for probation to function. The Defendant's violations therefore warrant revocation. 4 Because the Defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with substantial conditions of his 5 probation, the Court finds that revocation of the Defendant's probation will best satisfy the ends 6
7 of justice and the best interests of the public. Therefore, the Court grants the People's Motion to
8 revoke the Defendant's probation.
9 CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the People's Motion to Revoke 11 the Defendant's Probation and REVOKES the Defendant's probation in the above-captioned 12
13 matter. The Defendant is SENTENCED to serve ONE (1) YEAR of incarceration at the
14 Department of Corrections, Mangilao, and shall receive credit for time already served in this 15 matter. The Defendant asks this Court to commit him nunc pro tune to the date on which he was 16 confined in CF 194-25. The Court DENIES this request.
17 The Court shall issue a Judgment concurrent with this Decision and Order revoking the 18
19 Defendant's probation, accepting and entering the Defendant's guilty plea and conviction, and
20 imposing the one-year sentence. 21 SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2026.
22
23
24
25 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
26
27
28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Revoke Defendant's Probation People v. Ehder, CM0511-20