People v. Harper

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: March 30, 2012
• Docket: CM0380-09
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case no. C~380-09 4 ) ) 5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) re: Motion to Dismiss 6 KARSON K HARPER, ) 7 ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ---------------------------- 9

10 INTRODUCTION

11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on January 3,2012.

12 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins. The Defendant 13 was represented by Assistant Public Defender Suresh Sampath. After considering the matter 14 presented, the court now issues the following decision and order denying the Defendant's 15

16 motion to dismiss because the People have shown good cause for the delay in the arraignment

17 of the Defendant. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On May 11, 2009, a complaint was filed which charged the Defendant with Driving 20 Under the Influence of Alcohol (as a Misdemeanor) and Driving Under the Influence of 21

22 Alcohol (B.A.C.) (as a Misdemeanor). On October 11, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to

23 dismiss the complaint arguing that he was not promptly arraigned. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Under Guam law, a "defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the indictment or 26

27 information is filed or after the complaint is filed where prosecution by complaint is required

28 by § 1.15." 8 GCA § 60.1 O(a). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam held, "unless good

Page 1 of3 cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned 2 within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 14. The 3 Court also held that the "standard continues to require a case by case analysis of whether or not 4 the "specific circumstances" of any given case show good cause for delay beyond the 60 day 5

6 period normally required to comply with the law." Id.

7 As mentioned above, Defendant argues the complaint should be dismissed because the 8 Defendant was arraigned approximately two years after the complaint was filed. Defendant also 9 argues that there is no showing of "good cause" for the delay. On the other hand, the People 10

11 argue there was "good cause" for the delay for the following reasons: (1) the People retain no

12 control over the court's decision about when to calendar the date on which a defendant is to 13 return to court; (2) the Defendant failed to appear on numerous occasions; and (3) the 14 Defendant needed to consult with his attorney. 15 The complaint in this case was filed on May 11,2009, and the Defendant was arraigned 16

17 on August 10, 2011. The delay from the time the complaint was filed and the date of

18 arraignment was approximately 27 months. The court notes however that delay in arraignment 19 was caused by all of the reasons mentioned above by the People. The court fmds these reasons 20 to be "good cause" for the delay because unlike Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 14, where the People 21 did not take the voluntary step of requesting or filing a summons with court, the People 22

23 requested a summons the same time the complaint was fIled in the instant case. The initial

24 summons stated that Defendant was to appear on July 29, 2009. Subsequently, the Defendant 25 was summoned three more times stating that Defendant was to appear on September 9, 2009, 26 October 21, 2009, and December 16, 2009. A warrant was issued on December 16, 2009 and 27

Page2of3

OR'G\i~AL was not executed until July 12, 2011. Due to the Defendant's failure to appear, the Defendant 2 was not arraigned until August 10,2011. 3 The court finds that the primary reason for the delay in the Defendant's arraignment 4 was his failure to appear in court. Thus, the court finds "good cause" for the delay where the 5

6 defendant fails to appear and cannot reasonably be located for further criminal proceedings.

7 See, e.g., People v. Miller, 403 NYS 2d 110 (NY AD 1978). 8 CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the People have shown good cause for the 10 delay ofthe Defendant's arraignment. Thus, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. 11

~ 12

13 SO ORDERED, (hi;::£' iJ day of 2012.

Page 3 of3

OR\G\t'~AL