F g i §" 1 (Zi.Erl *r ifLAw" a "`§&URT
2 2§25 Juw IQ 5f*'ili: £§$ 3 r= . Q U P*-wt'F "§@§? QQ-=U*T? L "*'¢ 4 I is L: . §,,.~,§
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0352-24 9 vs. 10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 ANDREW EDWARD GONZALEZ GONZALEZ aka aka 12 12 Andrew Edward Lacdo-o Gonzalez, Andrew Edward Lacdo-o Gonzalez,
13 13 Defendant. Defendant. 14 14
15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This This matter camebefore matter came beforethe theHonorable HonorableVernon Vemon P. P. Perez Perez on onApril April 4, 4, 2025, 2025, for hearing on
17 17 Defendant Defendant ANDREW ANDREW EDWARD EDWARDGONZALEZ GONZALEZaka Andrew aka AndrewEdward EdwardLacdo-0 Lacdo-oGonzalez's Gonzalez's
18 18 ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion Motion to to Suppress. Suppress. Present were Defendant Present were with counsel, Defendant with Assistant Public counsel, Assistant
19 19 Defender Defender Adam Adam Gunkel Gunkel and and Assistant Attorney General General Dante CH Harootonian Harootonian on on behalf of of the
20 People People of ofGuam Guam ("the ("the Government"). Government"). Having Havingreviewed reviewedthe thepleadings, pleadings,the thearguments arguments presented, presented,
21 and the therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow nowissues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision Decision and and Order.
22 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
23 On On November November 2, 2024, Defendantwas 2024, Defendant wascharged chargedwith withfive five(5) (5)counts countsof ofGraffiti Graffiti (As a
24 Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's (Magistrate'sCon pl., Nov. Compl., Nov.2,2,2024). 2024). These Thesecharges chargesstem stem from from allegations allegations that that
25 Defendant Defendant placed graffiti with with the "R33P" on the tag "R33P" on five five different different occasions occasions and and locations in Tumon, of,
26 Guam from Hom October October 26, 26,2024 2024totoOctober October31, 31,2024. 2024.Id Id On OnMarch March31, 31,2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant was was
27 located located by police police at at his his place place of ofemployment employment and and agreed the precinct for an interview. agreed to go to the
People People v. v. Gonzalez Gonzalez Case No. No. CM0352-24 Decision Decision and Order Order
Page 11 of of4 1 (Decl. (Deel. of of Emily Emily L.A. L.A.Reyes, Reyes,Magistrate's Magistrate's Con pl., Nov. 2, Compl., 2, 2024). 2024). Defendant subsequently subsequently 2 admitted to to placing placinggraffiti graffiti in Tumon of and andthat thathis histag tagwas was"R33P." "R33P." Id. Id
3 13, 2025, On March 13, 2025, Defendant Defendant filed the the instant instant Motion, moving moving the the Court Court to tosuppress suppress 4 statements made statements madetoto GPD GPD on October 31, 31, 2024 2024 because because he he did did not not knowingly, voluntarily, and and s 5 intelligently intelligently waive waive his his right right to to counsel. counsel. See See generally, Mot. Mot. Suppress, Suppress, Mar. 13, 13, 2025. 6 On March 26, 26, 2025, 2025,the theGovernment Governmentfiled filed its Opposition.
7 On April 2, 2, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendantfiled filed his his Reply. Reply.
8 On April April 4, 4, 2025, 2025, the the Court Court heard heard swam sworn testimony testimony from from Guam Guam Police PoliceDepartment Department 9 ("GPD") ("GPD")Officer OfficerAntoinette AntoinetteMartinez Martinez ("Officer ("OfficerMartinez"). Martinez").The TheCourt Courtascertained ascertained the the following 10 10 facts from her testimony: testimony:
11 11 l. Defendant 1. Defendantwas wasidentified identifiedininaacriminal criminal mischief mischiefcomplaint. complaint. 12 12 2. Defendant Defendant was was taken taken into into custody custody at at his his place place of ofemployment, employment, Guam Guam Memorial Memorial 13 13 Hospital, and transportedto and transported to the theTumon Tum of Precinct.
14 14 3. Defendant Defendant was was placed placed into an interview interview room at at the thePrecinct. Precinct. Officer Martinez told
1s 15 him that she shewould wouldbe bereturning returningwith withthe theMiranda MirandaRights RightsCustodial CustodialInterrogation Interrogation Form
16 16 and Written Written Statement Form. Form.
17 17 4. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezreturned returnedtotothe theroom roomand and advised advised Defendant of his his Miranda rights. 18 18 This included included Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztelling tellingDefendant Defendanthehehad hadaaright righttotoan anattorney attorneyand and that 19 19 if ifhe he could could not afford afford an an attorney, one would be provided to him. 20 5. Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztestified testifiedthat thatDefendant Defendantdid didnot notappear appear drink drunk or or on on drugs drugs while she she 21 interacted with him. him.
22 22 6. Before BeforeDefendant Defendantsigned signedand andwaived waivedhis his rights, rights, he he requested Officer Officer Martinez contact contact 23 23 his lawyer McDonald.
24 24 7. Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztestified that testified thatshe sheunderstood understoodthat that meant meant Attorney McDonald McDonald was was his 25 attorney. attorney. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezasked askedDefendant Defendant ififhe hehad hadaaphone phone number number to to contact contact 26 26 Attorney McDonald. McDonald. 27 27 8. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezrequested requestedthe thephone phonenumber numberso soshe she could couldcontact contact his his attorney attorney and and 28 have him present with with Defendant during during his questioning. questioning.
People People v. Gonzalez Case No. CM0352-24 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 2 of of 4 1 Defendanttook 9. Defendant tookaabrief briefpause pause and and stated stated "never "never mind." mind."
2 10. Officer 10. OfficerMartinez Martinezinquired inquired ififDefendant Defendant was was sure. sure. 3 11. Defendant responded 11. responded"yeah, "yeah,the thelawyer lawyerfees feeswere wereaalot." OfficerMartinez lot." Officer Martinezunderstood understood 4 that to that to refer refer to to Attorney Attorney McDonald's attorney fees. McDonald's attorney fees.
5 12. Officer 12. Martinez testified Officer Martinez testified that that ififDefendant Defendant had had stated stated he didn't know know the the contact contact 6 number or number or responded respondedno, no,she shewould would have have stopped stopped the theinterview and Defendant interview and Defendant would would
7 have been arrested arrestedfor forthe thecriminal criminalmischief mischiefcomplaint. complaint. Officer Martinez testified Officer Martinez testified that that 8 she would have she would have made madeefforts efforts to to contact contact Attorney Attorney McDonald. McDonald.
9 DISCUSSION
10 10 The Fifth Amendment Amendment of of the the United United States StatesConstitution Constitutionprovides providesthat "[n]o that "[n]operson person... ...
11 1 shall be compelled in in any criminal case to to be a witness against against himself," himself," U.S. Const. amend. V, amend. V, 12 12 and isis applicable and Guamthrough applicabletotoGuam throughthethe Organic Organic Act.See Act. See4848U.S.C.A. U.S.C.A.§ §1421b(d). l421b(d). "The "The main main 13 13 purpose of purpose ensure that an of Miranda is to ensure an accused accused is is advised of ofand and understands understands the the right right to remain
14 14 silent and the the right right to to counsel." counsel." Bergnuis Berghuis v. Tnompkins, Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 370, 383 383(2010). "An accused (2010).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F g i §" 1 (Zi.Erl *r ifLAw" a "`§&URT
2 2§25 Juw IQ 5f*'ili: £§$ 3 r= . Q U P*-wt'F "§@§? QQ-=U*T? L "*'¢ 4 I is L: . §,,.~,§
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0352-24 9 vs. 10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 ANDREW EDWARD GONZALEZ GONZALEZ aka aka 12 12 Andrew Edward Lacdo-o Gonzalez, Andrew Edward Lacdo-o Gonzalez,
13 13 Defendant. Defendant. 14 14
15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This This matter camebefore matter came beforethe theHonorable HonorableVernon Vemon P. P. Perez Perez on onApril April 4, 4, 2025, 2025, for hearing on
17 17 Defendant Defendant ANDREW ANDREW EDWARD EDWARDGONZALEZ GONZALEZaka Andrew aka AndrewEdward EdwardLacdo-0 Lacdo-oGonzalez's Gonzalez's
18 18 ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion Motion to to Suppress. Suppress. Present were Defendant Present were with counsel, Defendant with Assistant Public counsel, Assistant
19 19 Defender Defender Adam Adam Gunkel Gunkel and and Assistant Attorney General General Dante CH Harootonian Harootonian on on behalf of of the
20 People People of ofGuam Guam ("the ("the Government"). Government"). Having Havingreviewed reviewedthe thepleadings, pleadings,the thearguments arguments presented, presented,
21 and the therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow nowissues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision Decision and and Order.
22 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
23 On On November November 2, 2024, Defendantwas 2024, Defendant wascharged chargedwith withfive five(5) (5)counts countsof ofGraffiti Graffiti (As a
24 Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's (Magistrate'sCon pl., Nov. Compl., Nov.2,2,2024). 2024). These Thesecharges chargesstem stem from from allegations allegations that that
25 Defendant Defendant placed graffiti with with the "R33P" on the tag "R33P" on five five different different occasions occasions and and locations in Tumon, of,
26 Guam from Hom October October 26, 26,2024 2024totoOctober October31, 31,2024. 2024.Id Id On OnMarch March31, 31,2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant was was
27 located located by police police at at his his place place of ofemployment employment and and agreed the precinct for an interview. agreed to go to the
People People v. v. Gonzalez Gonzalez Case No. No. CM0352-24 Decision Decision and Order Order
Page 11 of of4 1 (Decl. (Deel. of of Emily Emily L.A. L.A.Reyes, Reyes,Magistrate's Magistrate's Con pl., Nov. 2, Compl., 2, 2024). 2024). Defendant subsequently subsequently 2 admitted to to placing placinggraffiti graffiti in Tumon of and andthat thathis histag tagwas was"R33P." "R33P." Id. Id
3 13, 2025, On March 13, 2025, Defendant Defendant filed the the instant instant Motion, moving moving the the Court Court to tosuppress suppress 4 statements made statements madetoto GPD GPD on October 31, 31, 2024 2024 because because he he did did not not knowingly, voluntarily, and and s 5 intelligently intelligently waive waive his his right right to to counsel. counsel. See See generally, Mot. Mot. Suppress, Suppress, Mar. 13, 13, 2025. 6 On March 26, 26, 2025, 2025,the theGovernment Governmentfiled filed its Opposition.
7 On April 2, 2, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendantfiled filed his his Reply. Reply.
8 On April April 4, 4, 2025, 2025, the the Court Court heard heard swam sworn testimony testimony from from Guam Guam Police PoliceDepartment Department 9 ("GPD") ("GPD")Officer OfficerAntoinette AntoinetteMartinez Martinez ("Officer ("OfficerMartinez"). Martinez").The TheCourt Courtascertained ascertained the the following 10 10 facts from her testimony: testimony:
11 11 l. Defendant 1. Defendantwas wasidentified identifiedininaacriminal criminal mischief mischiefcomplaint. complaint. 12 12 2. Defendant Defendant was was taken taken into into custody custody at at his his place place of ofemployment, employment, Guam Guam Memorial Memorial 13 13 Hospital, and transportedto and transported to the theTumon Tum of Precinct.
14 14 3. Defendant Defendant was was placed placed into an interview interview room at at the thePrecinct. Precinct. Officer Martinez told
1s 15 him that she shewould wouldbe bereturning returningwith withthe theMiranda MirandaRights RightsCustodial CustodialInterrogation Interrogation Form
16 16 and Written Written Statement Form. Form.
17 17 4. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezreturned returnedtotothe theroom roomand and advised advised Defendant of his his Miranda rights. 18 18 This included included Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztelling tellingDefendant Defendanthehehad hadaaright righttotoan anattorney attorneyand and that 19 19 if ifhe he could could not afford afford an an attorney, one would be provided to him. 20 5. Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztestified testifiedthat thatDefendant Defendantdid didnot notappear appear drink drunk or or on on drugs drugs while she she 21 interacted with him. him.
22 22 6. Before BeforeDefendant Defendantsigned signedand andwaived waivedhis his rights, rights, he he requested Officer Officer Martinez contact contact 23 23 his lawyer McDonald.
24 24 7. Officer OfficerMartinez Martineztestified that testified thatshe sheunderstood understoodthat that meant meant Attorney McDonald McDonald was was his 25 attorney. attorney. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezasked askedDefendant Defendant ififhe hehad hadaaphone phone number number to to contact contact 26 26 Attorney McDonald. McDonald. 27 27 8. Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezrequested requestedthe thephone phonenumber numberso soshe she could couldcontact contact his his attorney attorney and and 28 have him present with with Defendant during during his questioning. questioning.
People People v. Gonzalez Case No. CM0352-24 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 2 of of 4 1 Defendanttook 9. Defendant tookaabrief briefpause pause and and stated stated "never "never mind." mind."
2 10. Officer 10. OfficerMartinez Martinezinquired inquired ififDefendant Defendant was was sure. sure. 3 11. Defendant responded 11. responded"yeah, "yeah,the thelawyer lawyerfees feeswere wereaalot." OfficerMartinez lot." Officer Martinezunderstood understood 4 that to that to refer refer to to Attorney Attorney McDonald's attorney fees. McDonald's attorney fees.
5 12. Officer 12. Martinez testified Officer Martinez testified that that ififDefendant Defendant had had stated stated he didn't know know the the contact contact 6 number or number or responded respondedno, no,she shewould would have have stopped stopped the theinterview and Defendant interview and Defendant would would
7 have been arrested arrestedfor forthe thecriminal criminalmischief mischiefcomplaint. complaint. Officer Martinez testified Officer Martinez testified that that 8 she would have she would have made madeefforts efforts to to contact contact Attorney Attorney McDonald. McDonald.
9 DISCUSSION
10 10 The Fifth Amendment Amendment of of the the United United States StatesConstitution Constitutionprovides providesthat "[n]o that "[n]operson person... ...
11 1 shall be compelled in in any criminal case to to be a witness against against himself," himself," U.S. Const. amend. V, amend. V, 12 12 and isis applicable and Guamthrough applicabletotoGuam throughthethe Organic Organic Act.See Act. See4848U.S.C.A. U.S.C.A.§ §1421b(d). l421b(d). "The "The main main 13 13 purpose of purpose ensure that an of Miranda is to ensure an accused accused is is advised of ofand and understands understands the the right right to remain
14 14 silent and the the right right to to counsel." counsel." Bergnuis Berghuis v. Tnompkins, Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 370, 383 383(2010). "An accused (2010). "An accused 15 15 in custody, having expressed in expressed his desire to deal with with the the police policeonly onlythrough throughcounsel, counsel,isisnot notsubj subject act
16 16 to further interrogation interrogation by the the authorities until counsel has been made made available to him, him, unless unless he 17 17 validly waives validly waives his his earlier earlier request request for for the the assistance assistance of counsel." Smith of counsel." v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, Smith v. 18 18 (1984) (quoting Edwards v.v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 94-95 (1984) 484-85 (1981). Theburden (1981). The burden is is on on the the 19 19 Government "to demonstrate Government demonstrate that thatDefendant Defendantknowingly knowinglyand andintelligently intelligentlywaived waived his his privilege privilege
20 against self-incrimination and and his hisright right to to retained retainedor or appointed appointedcounsel." counsel." Miranda v. v. Arizona, Arizona, 21 384 U.S. 436, 436, 475 475 (1966). (1966). "To be valid, "To be valid,the the waiver waivermust must be be voluntary, voluntary, knowing knowing and and intelligent. 22 22 This court court has stated stated that thatthe thevoluntary, voluntary,knowing knowing and and intelligent intelligent nature of a Miranda waiver nature of waiver is to 23 23 be gleaned gleaned from from the the totality totalityof ofthe thecircumstances, circumstances, which whichincludes includes the the background, background, experience experience and and 24 conduct of the defendant." defendant." People v. v. Farata, 2007 Guam ,r 46 (internal quotation Guam 88 1146 quotation marks marks and and 25 citation citation omitted) omitted). 26 26 The Government agrees agrees that thatDefendant Defendantproperly properlyinvoked invokedhis hisright rightto tocounsel. counsel. See See Opp'n Opp'n
27 27 at 2, Mar. 26, 2025. 2025. The The issue issue before before the the Court Court is is whether Defendantvalidly whether or not Defendant validly waived waived his his 28 right to counsel counsel by responding responding "never "never mind" mind" when whenasked asked for forhis hiscounsel's counsel'sphone phone number number and and
People v. Gonzalez People v. Case No. No. CM0352-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page3 of of4 1 the lawyer "yeah, the lawyer fees fees were were aa lot" lot"when whenasked asked ififhe hewas was sure sure about changing his about changing his mind. mind. In In order 2 to conclude conclude that there has that there has been been aawaiver, waiver, the the Court must must find find that thatDefendant's Defendant's relinquishment relinquishment of of
3 that that right was "the product of aa free free and and deliberate deliberate choice choice rather rather than intimidation, intimidation, coercion, or
4 deception" and and that that he had "a "a full awareness awareness of ofboth boththe the nature nature of ofthe the right right being being abandoned abandoned and and 5 the consequences consequences of of the decision decision to abandon it." Ir." United United States States v. Medunjanin, Medunjanin, 752 F.3d 576, 576,586 6 (ad (2d Cir. Cir. 2014) 2014) (citations omitted). 7 Here, although although testimony at at the the Suppression Suppression Hearing provided provided that that Defendant Defendant requested requested 8 Officer OfficerMartinez Martinezcontact contacthis his lawyer, lawyer,that that Defendant Defendant changed changed his mind after being asked asked for his his 9 attorney's attorney's phone phone number, and that number, and thatDefendant Defendantwas wasasked askedifhe if hewas was"sure," "sure," there no testimony there was no 10 about what occurred about what afterDefendant occurredafter Defendantstated stated "yeah, "yeah, thethelawyer lawyer feeswere fees werea alot." lot." The The Court Court 11 11 therefore has no information about how Defendant ultimately signed and waived his has no his rights, and and 12 12 how the conversation conversation continued after Defendant stated statedthat that"the "thelawyer lawyerfees feeswere were aalot." lot." See, See, e. e.g., 13 13 Smith, 469 U.S. Smith, ("if the U.S.at 95 ("if the accused accused invoked invoked his his right right to to counsel, counsel, courts courts may may admit admit his his responses 14 14 to further questioning questioning only on on finding that that he (a) initiated initiated further further discussions with the the police, and and 15 15 (b) (b) knowingly knowinglyand and intelligently intelligentlywaived waivedthe theright right he he had invoked."). invoked."). The TheCourt Courtisistherefore therefore unable unable 16 16 to determine whetherDefendant determine whether Defendantproperly properlyrevoked revoked his hisright. right. Accordingly, Accordingly,the theCourt Courtfinds finds that that the 17 17 Government has not met has not met its its burden burdenand andGRANTS GRANTS Defendant's Motion Motion to to Suppress. Suppress. 18 18 CONCLUSION
19 19 For For the foregoing reasons, the Court reasons, the Court hereby herebyGRANTS GRANTS Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionto toSuppress. Suppress. 20 Parties Parties shall shall return return for for aa Status Status Hearing on on June June 24, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. 21
22 IT IS SO ORDERED ORDEREDthis this' 10" 1)day of ~ay ofJune, June, 2025.
23 23
24 24 s
25 HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNONVERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Superior Cou11 of Guam Court of 26
27 27
People People v. Gonzalez Case No. CM0352-24 Case No. CM0352-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 44 of off4