r 1
_Q , . .n,,Ei3 t
»":"' =2Li~=»5.-SR C0'Jn ! 11 L . f .._m*_*§
2 '£U\9D€f$ \g PH \=25 3 CLERK OF cfézr 4 B IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF (SUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0536- 19 6 ) v. ) 7 ) DECISION & ORDER RE: PEOPLE'S 8 MARAK HARTMAN, ) MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT DOB: 07/06/1992, ) PREJUDICE 9 ) DEFENDANT. ) 10 ) 11
12 Introduction 13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Curzon on the People's Motion to 14 Dismiss Without Prejudice, filed on November 15, 2019. The People are represented by Chief 15 Prosecutor J. Basil O'Mal1an III. Defendant Merak Hartman ("Defendant") is represented by 16 Attorney Peter Sablan of the Public Defender's Office. Defendant did not oppose the Motion. 17 The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on November 21, 2019, after which the Court took 18 the Motion under advisement pursuant to CVR 7.1(e)(6)(D) of the Local Rules of the Superior 19 Court of Guam. After reviewing the Motion and having heard oral argument by both parties, the 20 Court issues this DECISION and ORDER GRANTING the People's Motion to Dismiss 21 Without Prejudice. 22 Background
23 Defendant in the above captioned matter was charged with Criminal Mischief (As a 24 Third Degree Felony). Indictment (Oct. 4, 2019). On September 26, 2019, Defendant allegedly
25 damaged the motor vehicle of another individual. Magistrate's Complaint at 2 (Sep. 28, 2019).
26 Ms. Margarita Delgado, Defendant's aunt, reported the incident to the police, Id. Ms. Delgado 27 told the police that she initially did not want to file a formal complaint with the police after 28
People v. Harinzalz, CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page l oI5 1 Defendant allegedly damaged the car. Id. However, when Defendant returned to the premises,
2 Ms. Delgado filed a formal complaint for the damage to the car. Id.
3 On November 15, 2019, the People filed the present Motion. People's Mot. to Disnliss
4 Without Prejudice (Nov. 15, 2019). In the Motion, the People indicate that Ms. Delgado
5 informed the People that she and Defendant had resolved their differences and "had reached an
6 agreement for the [D]efendant to make any repairs to her vehicle that the [D]efendant caused."
7 Id. Thus, the People requested that the Court dismiss the matter without prejudice. Id. Defendant
8 did not file any response to the Motion.
9 The Court held oral argument on the Motion at a November 21, 2019 hearing. Minute
10 Entry (Nov. 21, 2019). Defendant was not present at the hearing, yet Defendant's counsel waived
11 his appearance at the hearing for the purpose of arguing the Motion. Id. At the hearing, both the
12 People and Defendant's counsel asked the Court to grant the Motion. Id. The People read into the
13 record a signed statement from Ms. Delgado. Id. at 10:10:06 - l0:l0:35. In the statement, Ms.
14 Delgado asserted that the vehicle in question did not belong to her, but rather Defendant's father-
15 in-law. Id. Ms. Delgado indicated that the vehicle was returned to the owner. ld. Ms. Delgado
16 further indicated that the owner of the vehicle stated that he would take care of the vehicle. Id.
17 Ms. Delgado stated that she wishes to drop the case against Defendant. Id.
18 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.
19 Discussion
20 A. The matter cannot be dismissed under 8 GCA §80.90.
21 As an initial matter, the Court must indicate that the charge against Defendant cannot be
22 dismissed due ro a civil compromise between any alleged victim and Defendant. Under 8 GCA §
23 80.90, "[w]hen the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a
24 felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil
25 action" and "if the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which
26 the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has received
28 People v. Harmzzuz, CF0536-I9 Decision & Order Page 2 of 5 1 satisfaction for the injury," then "the court may, upon payment of the costs incurred, order the
2 criminal action dismissed." 8 GCA §§ 80,90(a)-(b) (emphasis added).
3 Defendant in this matter is charged with Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony).
4 A plain reading of Section 80.90 indicates that only Misdemeanor charges may he compromised
5 and dismissed through a civil agreement between alleged victims and defendants. Thus, if the
6 only basis for dismissal is that Ms. Delgado and Defendant have reached a civil agreement
7 regarding the damage ro the car, the Court would deny the Motion.
8 Here, the People indicate in their Motion that Ms. Delgado and Defendant "had reached
9 an agreement" regarding the damage to the car. This language reads similar to a civil
10 compromise between the two parties. However, at the hearing on the Motion, Ms. Delgado
11 indicated through her statement that she was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the true owner
12 was now in possession of the vehicle. Ms. Delgado also stated that the owner would be taking
13 care of the repairs to the vehicle.
14 Taldng the People's Motion and Ms. Delgado's statement together, the Court does not
15 believe that Ms. Delgado requested for dismissal of the matter because of a civil compromise
16 between herself nor anyone else and Defendant. Rather, as it appears in the Magistrate's
17 Complaint, Ms. Delgado never intended for this matter to go to court. Thus, because there exists
18 a separate basis for dismissal of the matter other than a civil compromise, the Court is free to
19 consider the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice under different grounds.
20 B. Absent a showing of prosecutorial badfaitlz, the matter can be dismissed under 8 GCA
21 §80.70.
22 When considering a Motion to Dismiss brought by the People under 8 GCA § 80.70(a),
23 the Court adopts the "presumption that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper
24 discharge of his duties." People of Guam v. Gutierrez 2005 Guam 19 <11 51 (quoting U.S. v.
25 Greater Blouse, Skirl & Neckwear Contractors Association, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y.
26 l964)). Defendant did not object to the People's oral Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. The
27 record does not reflect any basis for finding the People's Motion is emblematic of any
People v. Hartman,CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page 3 of 5 1 harassment requiring judicial or statutory protection. See Gutierrez *11 49 (quoting Rinaldi v.
2 United States, 432 US 22, 32 (1977) ("The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is
3 apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing,
4 and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's
5 objective.")).
6 Further, the timing of the Motion does not raise any suspicion for the Court. Jury
7 Selection and Trial in this matter is not scheduled until November 18, 2020. The Motion to
8 Dismiss comes nearly a year in advance of that date. Therefore, the Court is not concerned that
9 the People are moving for dismissal in order to deprive Defendant the opportunity for vindication
10 by an acquittal.
11 When the presumption of prosecutorial good faith stands, it can be "rebutted upon a
12 showing of a lack of good faith." U.S. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
r 1
_Q , . .n,,Ei3 t
»":"' =2Li~=»5.-SR C0'Jn ! 11 L . f .._m*_*§
2 '£U\9D€f$ \g PH \=25 3 CLERK OF cfézr 4 B IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF (SUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0536- 19 6 ) v. ) 7 ) DECISION & ORDER RE: PEOPLE'S 8 MARAK HARTMAN, ) MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT DOB: 07/06/1992, ) PREJUDICE 9 ) DEFENDANT. ) 10 ) 11
12 Introduction 13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Curzon on the People's Motion to 14 Dismiss Without Prejudice, filed on November 15, 2019. The People are represented by Chief 15 Prosecutor J. Basil O'Mal1an III. Defendant Merak Hartman ("Defendant") is represented by 16 Attorney Peter Sablan of the Public Defender's Office. Defendant did not oppose the Motion. 17 The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on November 21, 2019, after which the Court took 18 the Motion under advisement pursuant to CVR 7.1(e)(6)(D) of the Local Rules of the Superior 19 Court of Guam. After reviewing the Motion and having heard oral argument by both parties, the 20 Court issues this DECISION and ORDER GRANTING the People's Motion to Dismiss 21 Without Prejudice. 22 Background
23 Defendant in the above captioned matter was charged with Criminal Mischief (As a 24 Third Degree Felony). Indictment (Oct. 4, 2019). On September 26, 2019, Defendant allegedly
25 damaged the motor vehicle of another individual. Magistrate's Complaint at 2 (Sep. 28, 2019).
26 Ms. Margarita Delgado, Defendant's aunt, reported the incident to the police, Id. Ms. Delgado 27 told the police that she initially did not want to file a formal complaint with the police after 28
People v. Harinzalz, CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page l oI5 1 Defendant allegedly damaged the car. Id. However, when Defendant returned to the premises,
2 Ms. Delgado filed a formal complaint for the damage to the car. Id.
3 On November 15, 2019, the People filed the present Motion. People's Mot. to Disnliss
4 Without Prejudice (Nov. 15, 2019). In the Motion, the People indicate that Ms. Delgado
5 informed the People that she and Defendant had resolved their differences and "had reached an
6 agreement for the [D]efendant to make any repairs to her vehicle that the [D]efendant caused."
7 Id. Thus, the People requested that the Court dismiss the matter without prejudice. Id. Defendant
8 did not file any response to the Motion.
9 The Court held oral argument on the Motion at a November 21, 2019 hearing. Minute
10 Entry (Nov. 21, 2019). Defendant was not present at the hearing, yet Defendant's counsel waived
11 his appearance at the hearing for the purpose of arguing the Motion. Id. At the hearing, both the
12 People and Defendant's counsel asked the Court to grant the Motion. Id. The People read into the
13 record a signed statement from Ms. Delgado. Id. at 10:10:06 - l0:l0:35. In the statement, Ms.
14 Delgado asserted that the vehicle in question did not belong to her, but rather Defendant's father-
15 in-law. Id. Ms. Delgado indicated that the vehicle was returned to the owner. ld. Ms. Delgado
16 further indicated that the owner of the vehicle stated that he would take care of the vehicle. Id.
17 Ms. Delgado stated that she wishes to drop the case against Defendant. Id.
18 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.
19 Discussion
20 A. The matter cannot be dismissed under 8 GCA §80.90.
21 As an initial matter, the Court must indicate that the charge against Defendant cannot be
22 dismissed due ro a civil compromise between any alleged victim and Defendant. Under 8 GCA §
23 80.90, "[w]hen the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a
24 felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil
25 action" and "if the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which
26 the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has received
28 People v. Harmzzuz, CF0536-I9 Decision & Order Page 2 of 5 1 satisfaction for the injury," then "the court may, upon payment of the costs incurred, order the
2 criminal action dismissed." 8 GCA §§ 80,90(a)-(b) (emphasis added).
3 Defendant in this matter is charged with Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony).
4 A plain reading of Section 80.90 indicates that only Misdemeanor charges may he compromised
5 and dismissed through a civil agreement between alleged victims and defendants. Thus, if the
6 only basis for dismissal is that Ms. Delgado and Defendant have reached a civil agreement
7 regarding the damage ro the car, the Court would deny the Motion.
8 Here, the People indicate in their Motion that Ms. Delgado and Defendant "had reached
9 an agreement" regarding the damage to the car. This language reads similar to a civil
10 compromise between the two parties. However, at the hearing on the Motion, Ms. Delgado
11 indicated through her statement that she was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the true owner
12 was now in possession of the vehicle. Ms. Delgado also stated that the owner would be taking
13 care of the repairs to the vehicle.
14 Taldng the People's Motion and Ms. Delgado's statement together, the Court does not
15 believe that Ms. Delgado requested for dismissal of the matter because of a civil compromise
16 between herself nor anyone else and Defendant. Rather, as it appears in the Magistrate's
17 Complaint, Ms. Delgado never intended for this matter to go to court. Thus, because there exists
18 a separate basis for dismissal of the matter other than a civil compromise, the Court is free to
19 consider the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice under different grounds.
20 B. Absent a showing of prosecutorial badfaitlz, the matter can be dismissed under 8 GCA
21 §80.70.
22 When considering a Motion to Dismiss brought by the People under 8 GCA § 80.70(a),
23 the Court adopts the "presumption that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper
24 discharge of his duties." People of Guam v. Gutierrez 2005 Guam 19 <11 51 (quoting U.S. v.
25 Greater Blouse, Skirl & Neckwear Contractors Association, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y.
26 l964)). Defendant did not object to the People's oral Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. The
27 record does not reflect any basis for finding the People's Motion is emblematic of any
People v. Hartman,CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page 3 of 5 1 harassment requiring judicial or statutory protection. See Gutierrez *11 49 (quoting Rinaldi v.
2 United States, 432 US 22, 32 (1977) ("The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is
3 apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing,
4 and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's
5 objective.")).
6 Further, the timing of the Motion does not raise any suspicion for the Court. Jury
7 Selection and Trial in this matter is not scheduled until November 18, 2020. The Motion to
8 Dismiss comes nearly a year in advance of that date. Therefore, the Court is not concerned that
9 the People are moving for dismissal in order to deprive Defendant the opportunity for vindication
10 by an acquittal.
11 When the presumption of prosecutorial good faith stands, it can be "rebutted upon a
12 showing of a lack of good faith." U.S. v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982). However,
13 when there is no showing of bad faith on behalf of the People, Guam Courts have adopted the
14 nearly universal holding amongst Circuit Courts that a Motion to Dismiss should generally be
15 granted as a matter of course. Gutierrez 'll 52. See also United States v. Deal, 868 F.2d 424, 428
16 (lath Cir. l989) ("We conclude that, in the dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint
17 under Rule 48(a), the government is entitled to a presumption of good-faith."), Salinas, 693 F.2d
18 at 352 ("[T]his Court begins with the presumption that the prosecutor acted in good faith in
19 moving to dismiss the first indictment."), United States v. Palonmres, 119 F.3d 556, 560 (7th
20 Cir. 1997) ("the United States attorney is entitled to a presumption that its motions to dismiss are
21 grounded in good faith"), United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1488 (9th Cir. 1988)
22 ("[W]hen the government requests a Rule 48(a) dismissal in good faith, the district court is duty
23 bound to honor the request").
24 In this matter, Defendant did not present evidence of prosecutorial had faith. Rather,
25 Defendant asked the Court to grant the Motion. When the Court has no evidence of prosecutorial
26 bad faith or even the allegation of such by Defendant, then it stands that the presumption of good
27 faith alone "permits the [C]ourt to dismiss without prejudice." People of Guam v. Flores, 2009
People v. Hartman, CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page 4 of 5 1 Guam 22 'll 29 (quoting U.S. v. Olson, 846 F.2d 1103, 1114 (7th Cir. l988)). With the good faith
2 presumption unchallenged by Defendant, the statute generally limits the Court to "two options:
3 grant or deny the motion to dismiss the indictment." Gutierrez 'll 64 (quoting Salinas, 693 F.2d at
4 351).
5 Importantly, no prejudice will attach here with the Court granting the Motion. The law in
6 Guam does not generally authorize "trial courts to sue sponge dismiss indictments with
7 prejudice" when considering an 8 GCA § 80.70(a) Motion. Gutierrez 'it 69. Any collateral
8 prejudice suffered by Defendant due to a dismissal without prejudice may be cured in a separate
9 expungement proceeding when appropriate. The Court in granting the instant Motion does not
10 foreclose this remedy.
11 Because there has been no showing of prosecutorial bad faith, the presumption of good
12 faith stands, and the People's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED.
13 Conclusion and Order
14 Based on the reasons provi ded above, the Court hereby ORDERS CF0536-19
15 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 8 GCA§ 80.70 upon the voluntary dismissal
16 of the People. The Court vacates any conditional release orders and restrictions which Defendant
17 is ordered to follow in this matter.
18 DEC 1g 2019 19 so ORDERED this
22 HE MARIA T. cQQZOn 23 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 24 IERVIULL ..1 u:oun1 sox I acknowledge ha! a copyof the original heretowaspeacedinthe 25
26 cc. ,Ag F125/
27 Daer:181n1se= / ' * l '} " 28 _rpm C. Q "gunofGuam
People v. Hartman,CF0536-19 Decision & Order Page 5 of 5