People v. Garcia

Opinion

@Rn@[MAt Iti trf-\ I rL-LL/

$UPEfit{ifi COURT cr GtjAtd Territorial Law Library ,jii:? Jrltt Ig $f{ * 3g I IN TIIE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM f,LfiF?fi CiF C${_]nT 2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM. ) criminal case tSY,cF0520-07-- "*- "

Plaintifl 4 v. DECISION AIID ORDER re: motion to reconsider 5 ARIC CRAIG BOzuA GARCIA.

6 Defendant.

8 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on June 5,2009.

9 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney Jonathan Luke. Defendant was

10 represented by Attorney Jane L. Kennedy. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers

ll presented, the court now issues the following decision denying Defendant's motion for

12 reconsideration.

l3 BACKGROTII\D l4 On Novemb er 1,2007 , Defendant was indicted for Possession of a Schedule tr

l5 Controlled Substance, a 3rd Degree Felony and Speeding, as a Petty Misdemeanor. The

l6 indictrnent arises out evidence obtained from the roadside search of a vehicle Defendant was

t7 driving on October 31 when he was stopped for speeding. While the officer was conducting

l8 a traffic stop he testified that he observed suspected methamphetamine in plain view inside

t9 the Defendant's vehicle. On March 12,2008, upon motion of the Defendant a suppression

20 hearing was held where the Defendant introduced testimony that it was physically

2l impossible for the arresting officer to have established any legal cause for the search. In its

22 decision and order on this matter the court found,

23 [a]fter considering the arguments ofboth parties, the Court finds that suppression is not warranted. The Court bases it ruling on the testimony of Officer Ogo, which 24 indicated that when Garcia turned on the dome light of his vehicle to grab his vehicle registration, Officer Ogo notice a clear plastic straw in the center console 25 cup holder.

/8R[@nMA[ I attftougf, the testimony of Mr. Taimanao was presented to rebut Officer Ogo's 2 assertion that he was able to see the straw in the cup holder, the Court find Mr. a Taimanao's testimony to be unpersuasive. J People v. Garcia, Criminal No. CF0520-07, Decision and Order denying motion to 4 suppress, (March 25, 2008). 5

6 DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the court reconsider its March 25,2009. In support of his 7 argument he argues that the court must have misunderstood the testimony because it was 8

impossible for Officer Ogo's testimony to be true. Defendant in his motion cites no rule or 9 standard which permits or governs his request. Moreover his arguments are not supported 10 by any binding or persuasive law in this jurisdiction or another. 11

The People oppose the Defendants motion. In their memorandum in opposition the 12 People argue that the Defendant failed to comply with the standard set forth by the Guam 13 Supreme Court for reconsideration. They argue that the motion should therefore be l4 disallowed under for failure to show clear error, new evidence or a change in controlling 15 law. L6 In Guam criminal motions to reconsider are permitted and regulated by Rule 7.1(i) of t7 the Local Rules of The Superior Court of Guam, Civil Rules.r Super. Ct. Guam Rules 1.1 18 and 7.1(i) (2008). Rule 7.1 provides, l9 A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only in 20 accordance with the Guam Rules of Civil Procedures. No motion for 2l reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. 22 Id. at7.l(1). In a 2005 criminal case the, Guam Supreme Court, citing a holding from a 23

24 t Rule 1.1 of the same rules applies the local rules to the criminal actions. Super. Ct. Guam Rule 1.1 (2008). 25 Page -2- I previous civil case, explained that "'[t]his court has adopted three prongs to justi$r

2 reconsideration: where the trial court: (l) is presented with new evidence; (2) committed a J clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

4 controlling law. "' People of Guam v. Gutierrez,2005 Guam 19, 1T3 1 (Sup. Ct. Guam 2005)

5 citing, Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam I 9, 1T 3 8 (Sup. Ct. Guam 2004). ln a

6 criminal hearing the trial court's findings of fact and determinations of credibility by which

7 it is persuaded as to the truth or falsity of the testimony of a witness are within the court's

8 sole discretion. People of Guamv. Santos,1999 Guam 1,n32 (Sup. Ct. Guam 1999).

9 Moreover in a suppression hearing, "Once a defendant has met its burden of sufficiency, the

10 Government then bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the

l1 legality of its actions. U^S. v. Alexander, 589 F.Supp.2d 777,790 (E.D. Tex. 2008); see,

t2 Colorado v. Connelly,479U.S.157, 158 (1986)(as applied to amiranda waiver); see, flS.

I3 v. Vanvliet,542F.3d259,266 (lst Cir. 2008) (as applied to a consent search).

t4 In this case the court is unpersuaded that the Defendant has presented any issue for

15 which a motion to reconsider may be grounded. It appears from the record on file that the

t6 Defendant is re-arguing issues raised at the suppression hearing which were adequately

r7 considered by the court and found to be unpersuasive and the testimony not credible.

l8 Absent some authority allowing further reconsideration and supporting a clear error reversal,

t9 the court is unable to grant Defendant's motion.

20 CONCLUSION 2l For the reasons above Defendant's motion to reconsider is denied.

22 So ORDERED this lTUutof June 2009.

23 Michael J. Bordallo 24 Superior Court of Guam 25 Page -3-