People v. Flores, Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: CM0236-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

i

vl

2ThUG29 PH L: r t_-i..’ ‘

By:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CM0236-20 GPD Report No. 20-1 5698 Plaintiff,

vs.

DECISION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER CLARENCE DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FLORES JR., FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOB: 03/31/1999

Defendant.

This matter came before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez on June 3, 2022 for a hearing

on Defendant Christopher Clarence F lores Jr.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Civil Compromise

filed on March 11, 2022 (“Motion”). Present via Zoom was Defendant; Attorney David Highsmith of the Public Defender Service Corporation representing Defendant; and Assistant

Attorney General Sean Brown representing the People of Guam (the “People”). Having reviewed the record and arguments presented by the parties as well as applicable law, the Court

now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant’s Motion Without Prejudice.

BACKGROUND On June 20, 2020, Defendant was charged, by Magistrate’s Complaint, with One Count

of Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). Magistrate’s Compl. (June 20, 2020). On March 11,

2022, Defendant filed the present Motion which attaches a Waiver of Prosecution (“Waiver”)

signed by Margaret Meno and Thomas Meno (“Victims”), the alleged victims in the case. The DECISION AND ORDER CMO236-2O, People v. Christopher Clarence ftores Ji’

People filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (“Opposition”) on March 16, 2022.

Defendant filed a Reply to the Government’s Opposition (“Reply”) on May 27, 2022. The Court

heard the matter on June 3, 2022 and took the Motion under advisement.

DISCUSSION Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the Magistrate’s Complaint pursuant to Guam’s

Civil Compromise statute, codified at 8 GCA § 80.90. Motion, at 1. Defendant’s Motion is

based upon the Waiver signed by the Victims. Motion Attachment, at 4. Defendant further

argues that civil compromise is appropriate in this case because: 1) the civil injury is coextensive

with the criminal violation; 2) the remedy to the coextensive civil injury is restitution for the

window screen; 3) the Victims waived their right to restation; 4) the seriousness of the offense

was minimal given that it was family dispute with no physical injuries; and 5) the Victims’

Waiver was signed voluntarily. Motion, at 3.

In the People’s Opposition, the People argue that the Victim’s Declaration does not meet

the satisfaction of injury requirement because the requirement that the Victims received

satisfaction is not completed. Opposition, at 1. At the June 3, 2022 Motion Hearing, the People

further argued that while the Victims may have forgiven the Defendant by virtue of their Waiver,

their forgiveness does not meet the requirements under 8 GCA § 80.90. Mi Entry, at 9:34:32 AM (June 3, 2022).

I. Not All The Requirements of Guam’s Civil Compromise Statute, $ GCA § 80.90, Are Met.

Guam’s Criminal Procedure Code provides that a court may order a criminal action

dismissed, “[w]hen the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is

not a felony for which the person the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a

remedy by a civil action,” and “[when] the person injured appears before, or files his declaration

in, the court in which the criminal action is pending. . . and acknowledges that he has received

2 DECISION AND ORDER CM0236-20; People v. Christopher Clarence flores Jr

satisfaction for the injury.” $ GCA § 80.90(a) and (b). Further, “dismissal under this Section is a

bar to another prosecution for the same offense.” 8 GCA § 80.90(c).

A. Defendant’s Charge Is A Misdemeanor and Each Charge Has a Civil Remedy.

First, it is undisputed that Defendant was charged with one misdemeanor and no felonies.

Second, the charge has a remedy by civil action. A charged offense has a corresponding civil

remedy if, “the civil cause of action shares a common element with the criminal offense,

compromise is available; overlapping, not full congruence, is required.” People v Tischman, 40

Cat. Rptr. 2d 650, 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

In Guam, criminal mischief is defined as, “intentionally damag[ing] the property of

another.” 9 GCA § 34.50(c). Guam recognizes the common law civil cause of action of conversion, whose “elements . . . are: (1) facts showing plaintiff’s ownership or right of possession of the property; (2) defendant’s wrongful act toward. . . the property, interfering with plaintiff’s possession; and (3) damage to the plaintiff.” Adkins v. Suba, 2011 WL 4443232 *10

(D. Guam 2011), reversed on other grounds. As above, the criminal cause of action and the civil

cause of action share common elements, including a wrongful act to the property of another.

Therefore, the act constituting the charge of Criminal Mischief has a civil remedy.

B. The Victims Filed a Waiver Without Acknowledging That They Received Satisfaction for the Injury.

For the Court to dismiss a criminal action under as 8 G.C.A. § 80.90, the alleged victim

must “acknowledge[] that he has received satisfaction for the injury.” 8 G.C.A. $0.90 (b). § Although the Civil Compromise statute does not suggest that monetary satisfaction is the only

way to meet $ GCA § 80.90’s requirements,’ satisfaction for the injury is achieved when “the

victim has in actuality received recompense acceptable to him for his injury[.]” People v.

See e.g., People v. Castro, CM0350-14, Decision and Order, at 2 (May 18, 2015); People v. Doone, CM0845-12, Decision and Order, at 3-4 (May 9, 2013); People i Kinsei, CM0009-14, Decision and Order, at 2-4 (Aug. 18, 2014); People i Gaza, CM0860-14, Decision and Order, at 5-6 (April 15, 2015).

3 DECISION AND ORDER Cli0236-20, People v. Christopher Clarence flores J,

Stephen, 182 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 14, 27 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1986) (emphasis added)

(clarifying that the victim need not receive every recovery possible under civil law).

Here, the Victims’ Waiver states that the Victims: 1) do not fear the Defendant; (2) would

like the stay away order lifted; (3) waive any restitution; (4) do not want to testify in the matter;

and (5) request that this case be dismissed. Motion, Attachment, at 4. Although the Waiver

states that the Victims “waive any restitution” and that they “request this case be dismissed,” the

Victims do not explicitly acknowledge that they received satisfaction, whether monetary or

otherwise, for the injury. Therefore, the Court finds this statement fails to satisfy the requirement

under $ G.C.A. § 80.90 that an alleged victim must acknowledge that he has received satisfaction

for the injury.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion Without

Prejudice.

SO ORDERED: AUG 2 9 2022