People v. Ermis

Opinion

ixvi ;* l

2L i' !....§"L LJ 5g?%?.»<=.=3Et COM. 1 1.

QF =?8uAt1

umm -2 PH \=E9 CLER;-Q0? CGURT

By*

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

11 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: cF0013.21

vs. DECISION AND ORDER R e : Pe o p le 's M o tio n to Am e n d

In d ictm e n t

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION T h is m at t e r c am e b e f o r e t h e H o n o r ab le J u d ge A n it a A . S u ko la o n F e b r u ar y 2 2 ,

22 2 0 2 1 , u p o n th e Pe o p le 's Mo tio n lo Am e n d In d ictm e n t. T h e Pe o p le ar e r e p r e se n te d b y

23 A s s is t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l D e n n is L . L e . T h e D e f e n d a n t , A M E r m is ("Ermis"), is 24 r e p r e se n te d b y Alte r n ate Pu b lic D e fe n d e r . Fo r th e r e aso n s se t fo r th b e lo w , h avin g

25 r e v ie w e d t h e m o v in g p a p e r s o f b o t h p a r t ie s , t h e C o u r t G R A N T S t h e P e o p l e ' s M o t i o n t o 26 E A m e n d I n d ic t m e n t .

BACKGROUND

E r m is w as ar r e s t e d an d c h ar ge d w it h a m agis t r at e ' s c o m p lain t o n J an u ar y 1 4 , 2 0 2 I 29 f o r a l l e g e d c o n d u c t t h a t o c c u r r e d o n M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 2 0 . Se e M a g is L r a le ' s C o n p l. ( J a n . 1 4 ,

30 2 0 2 1 ) . T h e c a s e w a s t h e n p r e s e n t e d t o a s u p e r io r c o u r t g r a n d ju r y o n J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 2 1 .

31 G r an d Ju r y Min . En tr y ( Jan . 2 9 , 2 0 2 1 ) . Th e in d ictm e n t su b m itte d to th e gr an d ju r y 32 ch ar ge d Er m is w ith th e Fir st C h a r g e o f T H E F T O F A M O T O R V E H I C L E ( A s a

cF0013-21, People v. AM Ermis. Page 1 of 3 Decision and Order (Motion lo Amend Indictment). I I I

1 Second Degree Felony) and the Second Charge of C ON S PIR AC Y T O C OMMIT 2 ! BURGLARY (As a Second Degree Felony). The grand jury made a series of handwritten 3 clerical mistakes that made their findings unclear, but after the Magistrate Judge examined

4 the foreperson, Ir was determined that the grand jury reported No True Bill for the First

5 Charge of TI~IEl7l`OF A M OTOR VEHICLE (As a Second Degree Felony) and True

6 Bi l l for the Second Charge of CONSP IRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY (As a

7 Second Degree Felony). See ld.; See also People's Mot. to Amend Indictment (Feb. 9,

8 2021).

9 At an arraignment hearing on February 3, 2021, the Alternate Public Defender

10 | Service Corp., argued for dismissal of the Indictment because it was unclear on the charge

1I or charges returned by the grand jury. ld. In response, the People tiled the instant motion

12 : seeking to amend the indictment in order to clarify the charges against Ermis. ld. Ermis

13 i tiled an opposition to the motion on February 12, 2021. On February 22, 2021, a hearing

14 : was held and the court subsequently took this matter under advisement.

17 This Court may pemlit the prosecution to amend the indictment at any time before

18 a verdict or finding is made, so long as the amendment does not charge an additional or

19 different offense or prejudice the defendant's substantial rights. 8 GCA § 55.20. "An

20 amendment of an indictment ... must be of form and not of substance to be permissible."

21 Guam v. San Nieolas, 2013 Gua.m 21 1 16. Generally, an amendment is substantive where 22 it materially alters or adds essential elements of a crime. See Id. 'I 3, 6, 25. The test of 23 whether an amendment will prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights is: "whether a 24 defense under an indictment as it originally stood would be equally available after the

25 amendment is made, and whether any evidence the defendant might have would be

26 equally applicable to the indictment in the one form as in the other." People v. Diaz, 2007

27 Guam 3 1 17 (citing United States v. Fawcett, 115 F.2d 764, 767 (3rd Cir. 1940)). 28 Here, the proposed amended indictment removes one of the two charges on the 29 face of the indictment and the corresponding police report number. The amendment is not 30 charging an additional or different defense and it does not affect any potential defenses or

31 the use of any potential evidence. The amended indictment exists merely to settle any

32 confusion. The proposed amendment does not place the Defendant in a different or worse

cF0013-21, People v. AM Ermis. Page 2 of 3 Decision and Order (Motion ro Amend Indictment). 1 g position than he enjoyed before the amended indictment. The proposed amendment is one

2 of form and not substance. Finally, the record makes it clear that the grand jury made

3 simple handwritten clerical mistakes on the face of the indictment, and the proposed

4 indictment follows the reporting of the grand jury regarding the proper True Bill and No

5 Tru e B ill. See Grand Jury Min. Entry (Jan. 29, 2021).

9 | Based on th e foreg oin g , th e Cou rt G R AN T S t h e P eop le's Mot ion t o A m en d

10 Indictment.

1l

12 SO O RDE RE D t h i s ; / z / a v L /

/» 13

15 ONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam

senvncs vIA E44IAIL thdcnuweuae N! an dechulit cuayoiiheovigindwase-m\iled\n:

As, nF0

DM:

*we DUIIKYCIHK.

CF0013-21, People v. AM Ermis. Page 3 of 3 Decision and Order (Motion to Amend Indicimenl).