People v. Gonalez

Opinion

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:

. §,,.~,§

5

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

28

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

28

People People v. Gonzalez Case No. CM0352-24 Case No. CM0352-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 44 of

off4