People v. Hattig

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: CF0362-21
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

I

Fi -.Ru- LED g 1 CLERK CF COURT ,_2025 28Z5FEBFEB 19 goPHF Ll: ~: 53 @2 2

3 3U ?ۤ@ Q 4 I 53; n "w-

6 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. NO. CF0362-21 CF0362-21 8 ) GPD REPORT NOS.21-17543/21-17544 REPORT NOS. 21-17543/21-17544 )) 9 vs. ) )) 10 ) 111 DUANE HATTIG, JOHN DUANE HATTIG, JR., JR., ) DECISION AND ORDER DOB: DOB:02/27/1980 02/27/1980 )) RE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 12 12 ) ENFORCE THE PRIOR PLEA Defendant. Defendant. I )) ACCEPTED AGREEMENT 13 13 .> 14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came before matter came before the the Honorable Honorable Maria Maria T. T. Cenzon upon Defendant Defendant John John Duane Duan 16 16 Hattie, Hattig, Jr.'s ("Defendant" ("Defendant" or "Defendant Hattie") Motion to EnfOrce "Defendant Hattig") the Prior Accepted Plea Enforce the Ple 17 17

18 18 Agreement (the "Motion"). "Motion").Representing Representingthe theDefendant Defendant isis Assistant Assistant Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender Defende

19 19 Peter J. J. Santos (APD Santos). Santos (APD Santos). Representing the People Representing the People of of Guam Guam ("the People") People") isis Assistant Assistan 20 20 Attorney General General Valerie Valerie A. A. Nuesa. Nuesa. The The Court Court held held aa Motion Motion Hearing Hearing on on Defendant's Motion Motion on o 21 November November 21, 21, 2024. 2024. After After hearing hearing oral oral arguments arguments from the parties, the Court parties, the Court took the the Motio Motion 22 22 under advisementpursuant under advisement pursuantto to CVRCVR 7-1(€)(6)(D) 7.l(e)(6)(D) ofofthe theLOCAL LOCALRULES RULES OF OF THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIO 23 23

24 COURT COURT OF GUAM.11 OF GUAM. I

26 26

28 11 At At the end of the Motion Motion Hearing, Hearing, the the Court Court separately separately took under advisement Defendant's Motion advisement Defendant's Motion to to Enforce Enforce the th Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Plea Agreement. Agreement. See Min. Entry (Nov. 21, See Min. 21, 2024). 2024). OnOn the the other other unresolved umesolved motions motions brought brought byby the th Defendant, the Court Court ordered ordered supplemental briefings by the parties.See supplemental briefing~ parties. See Order Re. Brief ng Schedule Re. Briefing Schedule (Dec. (Dec. 5, 2024). 5, 2024).

People v.v.Hattig,:Criminal Hattig,Criminal Case No. CF0362-21 Case No. CF0362-21 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to to Enforce Enforce the the Prior PriorAccepted Accepted Plea Plea Agreement Agreement » Page Page 11 of of 11 11 1 After having received and reviewed the papers, reviewed reviewed the arguments and the file herein, reviewed oral arguments 2 I I II I the Court issues Issuesthe thefollowing followingDecision Declslonand andOrder OrderDENYING Defendant's Motion DENYING Defendant's Motion to to Enforce Enforce the th 3 Prior Plea Agreement. Agreement. 4

5 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6 The procedural history of this this case case isis important importanttotothe theCourt's Court'sdetermination. determination. Consequently, Consequently,

77 the Court details it here despite its length. This matter began on July 30, 2021, upon the grand grandjury 8 8 returning an returning an Indictment Indictment against againstDefendant DefendantHartig Hattigfor for the thefollowing following offenses: the the First First Charge Charge o of 99 of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Possession of Degree Felony), the Second Charge 10 10

11 11 of Possession of of of a Schedule IV Controlled Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Degree Felony), the Third Charge

12 12 Possession of a Concealed of Possession Concealed Firearm Firearm (As a Third Degree Felony), and the Fourth Fourth Charge of 13 13 Possession of of Firearm Without Without a Firearms Firearms Identification Identification Card (As a Third Degree Felony). On 0 14 14 January 19, 2024, 2024, the the grand grand jury jury returned returned aa Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment against the Defendant for the 15 15

16 Charge of Possession of a Schedule ll following offenses: the First Charge II Controlled Controlled Substance Substance with wit 16

17 17 Intent to Deliver (As a First Degree Felony), the Second Charge of of Possession of of a Schedule II

18 18 Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), the Third Charge of of Possession of of a Schedule 19 . I 9 Controlled Substance IV Controlled Substance (As Felony), the Fourth (As a Third Degree Felony), Fourth Charge Charge of of Possesslon Possession of of a 20 Concealed Firearm (As (As a Third Degree Felony), Felony), and and the the Fifth Fifth Charge Charge of of Possession Possession of of a Firearm 21 21

22 Without a Firearm's Firearm's Identification Identification Card Card (As (As aa Third Third Degree Degree Felony) Felony).. 22

23 Prior to to the filing of the Superseding Indictment, the parties appeared before the Court on

24 24 October 17, October 17, 2023, for aa Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference. Conference. At Atthe thehearing, hearing, the the People Peoplerepresented represented that that aa plea ple 25 . . 1 | I I offer had offer had been been accepted in principle prlnclple barring acceptance acceptance of of some revisions revlslons by defense counsel. See 26 26 Min. Entry (Oct. 17, 17, 2023). 2023). Based Based on the People's representation, the Court vacated Jury Jury Selection 27 27

28 28 and Trial and would set a Change of of Plea hearing. Id.

People v. Hattie, Criminal Case No. v. Hattig, No. CF0362-21 Decision Decision and Re. Defendant's Motion and Order Re. Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 2 of of l11I 1 On November 20, 2023, November 20, 2023, the parties appeared before the Could Court for for the the scheduled scheduled Change of 2 n | I Plea hearlng. Plea hearing. At this hearing, the At thls the Defendant's Defendant's Change of Plea Plea could not move forward forward because because the 3 formal plea agreement agreement had had not not been been prepared prepared and and the the assigned assigned prosecutors prosecutor2 was was unavailable. unavailable. See 4 5 Min. Entry (Nov. 20, 2023). Min. 2023). Defense counsel indicated that a plea would be prepared and notice 5

6 of the plea would be filed. filed. Id. Id. The Court Court indicated that in lieu of of the Change of of Plea, Plea, the Court Cou

77 dates for trial pending the filing of the formal plea agreement and the notice of would issue new dates 8 of Plea Change of Plea hearing. hearing. Id. Following this this hearing, hearing, on January January 19, 2024, 2024, the People filed the 9 Indictment against the Defendant. Superseding Indictment 10

11 11 1, 2024, On July 1, 2024, Defendant Hattie Battig filed his Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictmen

12 to Prosecutorial Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct/Vindictive MisconductNindictive Prosecution; Prosecution, Enforce Enforce the Accepted Plea the Prior Accepted Ple 13 13 Agreement; Disqualify Acting Chief Agreement, and Disqualify Chief Prosecutor Prosecutor Gloria Rudolph and and Attorney Attorney General General 14 Further Participation in this Douglas Moylan from Further this Case. Case. Citing Citing animus animus between between himself himself and the 15 15 16 of the Attorney General ("OAG"), defense counsel APD Santos Office of Santos contemporaneously contemporaneously filed a 16

17 17 Declaration of Counsel on July 1, l, 2024, in which he stated the following: following:

18 18 6. Plea negotiations ensued between between March March and and October, October, 2023, and on October 13, 2023, Defendant accepted the plea offer. The prosecuting Attorney was Kristine Kristine 19 19 Borja. 20 20 7. The Court issued a Notice on October. 23, 2023, setting the Change of of Plea for November November 20,20, 2023. However, on November November 20.20. 2023, the formal plea agreement 21 had not been drafted, and the plea could not go forward. 8. Also on November November 20, 20, 2023, the undersigned attended a 9:30 a.m. Change of of 22 22 Plea in the Honorable Judge Vernon Vernon P. P. Perez's courtroom for CF524-23, People v. 23 23 Charles Warner Edmond Edmond pleaded Edmond where Mr. Edmond pleaded "straight "straight up." 9. On December December 6, 2023, thethe undersigned attended a 9:30 a.m. a.m. Sentencing Sentencing Hearing 24 Honorable Judge in the Honorable Judge Vernon Vernon P.P. Perez's Perez's courtroom courtroom forfor CF524-23, CF524-23, People v. 25 Charles Warner Charles Warner Edmond, Acting Chief Edmond, where Acting Chief Prosecutor Prosecutor Gloria Rudolph was present for the People. 26 26 10. 10. During ing the hea ing, the under hearing, signed was highly undersigned highly cr itica l of critical of the the Attor Attorney General's Office for General's Office for their their mishandling mishandling of the case and Acting Acting Chief Chief Prosecutor Prosecutor 27

28 28

z2 Attorney Kristine B. Borja, former former Assistant Attorney General. General.

People People v. v. Hattie, Hattig, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No. CF0362-21 CF0362-21 Decision Decision and Re. Defendant's and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Plea Agreement Page Page 3 of 11 11 I

1,

I 1

1 became became very defensive defensive and and accused accused thethe undersigned undersigned of making making politically politically motivated attacks attacks ofof the theAttorney Attorney Qeneral's General'sOffice. Office. 2 ll. Later 11. Laterthat thatday, day,Acting ActingAssiStant Assistant Chief ChiefProsecutor Prosecutor Grant Grant Olan Olan sent sent the the 3 undersigned undersigned an an email email rescinding the already rescinding the already accepted accepted plea plea agreement, agreement, without without explanation. . 4 12. 12. The undersigned questioned the:assigned the;assignedprosecutor prosecutorAAGAAG Kristine Kristine Borj Borja, who stated that she stated that she was was questioning questioning the the decision herself andand when sheshe Was was informed 5 about the decision about the decision byby Gloria Gloria Rudolph, Rudolph, AAGAAG Borja Borjaresponded responded that it was not right 6 and that thatthe theplea pleaagreement agreementwas wasvery veryfault faultand andwhat whateveryone everyoneelse elsegets, gets,AAG AAG Borj Borja was told that if she she did not want to accept the decision, she can resign. resign. 7 15. The undersigned undersigned is aware from from current current and previous prosecutors thatthatAttorney Attorney 8 General General Douglas Douglas Moylan Moylan frequently frequently makes makes disparaging disparaging remarks remarks about about the the undersigned undersigned and anditit is is well known known that the AG AG bears bears great great animosity animosity towards towards the 9 undersigned. undersigned. :'

10 10 APD APDSantos 's Deck. Santos's Deel. 0f Counsel (Jul. o/Counsel (Jul. 1, 1, 2024) ,i,i 6-12, 2024) W 6-12, 15. 15. On July 2024,the 15, 2024, July 15, thePeople People filed filed their 11 11 i

Opposition to to Defendant's Motion. Contemporaneously, Acting Chief Conte~poraneously, Acting Chief Prosecutor Prosecutor Gloria Gloria Ann Ann L. 12 12 Rudolph ("ACP ("ACP Rudolph") Rudolph")filed filedher herDeclaration DeclarationofofCounsel Counselon onJuly July15, 15, 2024, 2024, declaring: declaring: 13 13

14 14 · 2. I have have never never communicated communicated withwith Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender Defender Santos Santos regarding regarding confidential matters involving this;or matters involving this or any any other other case, case, including including any any strategies strategies or 15 15 discussions related to discussions related to the the Superseding SupersedingIndictment Indictmentfiled filed in in this case. 3. The factual allegations allegations he makes,areare false. false. 16 16

17 17 ACP ACPRudolp/'z'5 Deal. of Rudolph's Deel. Counsel (Jul. 15, ofCounsel 15, 2024) W 2-3. 2024) ,i,i 2-3. Contemporaneously as well, Contemporaneously as well, Attorney

18 18 Kristine B. Borja Borja ("Attorney ("Attorney Borja") Borja")filed filedlier herDeclaration DeclarationofofCounsel Counselon onJuly July 15, 15, 2024. Attorney 19 19 Borja declaredthe Borja declared thefollowing: following: 20 3. I was previously previously the the prosecutor prosecutor assigned assigned to this this case case and it was reassigned when I was wa 21 assigned totOaaspecific specific courtroom and. andspecific specific type cases. 4. Assistant Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender Defen~erPeter PeterJ.J. Santos Santos did did askask me about this case case after after The 22 People indicated indicated it will will not not proceed proceed with with the the previous previous offer offer and and II stated stated that that l1am am not no 23 assigned toto the the case case (at (at the thetime). time). 5. I do not recall recall making making other other statements statements beyond the the aforementioned to him. him. 24 6. I have made madethe thesame samestatement statementotoother othermembers membersofofthe theAlternate AlternatePublic PublicDefender Defenderoffic office 25 25 when asked about this case, caset - . 7. I do recall Assistant Assistant Alternate AlternatePublic PublicDefender DefenderPeterPeterJ.J. Santos Santos making making comments comments to the 26 effect effect of ofwhat what hehe attributes attributes to to me me saying, saying, "it "it was very fair and what everyone and what everyone else gets", however, my recollection recollection is that that Idid d1dnot notrespond respond to him. 27 . I 28 28 Atty. Borja 's Deck. Bor1a's Deel. of Counsel (Jul. o/Counsel (Jul. 15, 2024)1,r,i 15, 202,4) 1113-7. 3-7. -

1l 1I j

Hattig) Criminal People v. Hattie Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0362-21 CF0362-2 l Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 44 of of 11 ll 1 On July 2024, Defendant July 15, 2024, Hattie filed Defendant Hattig forPreservation Motion for filed a Motion requesting the Preservationrequesting Co the Court 2 2 OAGto order the OAG to order preserve"all topreserve emailsmemorandums, "allemails texts, correspondences memorandums,texts, or related correspondences or item related items 3 Defender Peter where Assistant Public Defender J. Santos Peter J. is mentioned Santos is from January mentioned from present,' January 1, 2022 to present," 4 and to to allow defense counsel to review defense counsel the same reviewthe Mot. Jot same materials. Deft. 's Mot. (Jul. 15, Preservation (Jul. for Preservation 5

6 6 2024) at 1-2. filed their The People filed 1-2. The Oppositionto their Opposition Defendant'sMotion to Defendant's forPreservation Motionfor onJuly Preservationon 31, July31

77 2024, 2024, citing citing work-products work-products protections statute. See Guam statute. protections Guam 2024). 31, 2024). (Jul. 31, Resp. (Jul. Ppl. 's Resp. See Ppl. 8 8 Additionally, Additionally,the the People Peopleopposed opposedthe tucksdecum subpoena tuces the subpoena the OAG served upon the deum served procedura for procedural OAG for 9 statutory defectiveness. and statutory See Id. defectiveness. See 10

11 1 On On October October 15, 15, 2024, 2024, Attorney Born Borja,a,who whohad hadby bythen theOAG leftthe thenleft for private practice, OAG for ' 12 12 filed aa Witness's Witness's Motion to Quash Subpoena, wherein Quash Subpoena, she requested wherein she the Court to quash requested the th quash the ' 13 13 subpoena served upon uponhet herby bythe OAG because the theOAG information sought is "protected the information by the "protected by Gu the Guam 14 14 Rules of Rules Professional Conduct ofProfessional and attorney Conduct and work product." attorney work to Quash 's Mot. to Borja 's product." Atty. Borja Subpoen Quash Subpoena 15 15 15, 2024) (Oct. 15, at 4. 2024) at 4. Subsequently, November 20, 2024, on November Subsequently; on Witness' Attorney Borja filed aa Witness's 2024, Attorney 16 16

1 . Motion 17 Motionto toQuash Quash Subpoena, Subpoena, wherein the Court requested the wherein she requested the same Court the relief as her prior motion samerelief

18 18 but in regards regards to to defense defense counsel counsel for for Defendant Hattig. Hattie.See See Ally Atty Bolja Borja's's Mot. Mot. totoQuash Subpoen QuashSubpoena 19 19 (Nov. (Nov.20, 20, 2024) 2024) at 4. 4. 20 20 On November 21, 2024, 2024, Defendant Hattig Hattie filed Counsel in Supplemental Declaration of Counsel filed aa Supplemental 21 Support of Motion Motion to Dismiss Superseding transcripts of Indictment, wherein he attached transcripts Superseding Indictment, th of the 22 22

23 aforementioned aforementioned sentencing sentencing hearings in CF0524-23 and email correspondences between hearings in the OA between the OAG

24 24 and Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender.See See Supp. 2024). 21, 2024). (Nov. 21, Deal. (Nov. Supp. Deel. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A. A. Applicable Applicable law lawgoverning governing plea plea agreenlents. agreements. 27

28 28 Guam law regulates Guam law regulates plea plea bargaining bargaining in in criminal criminal matters. matters.88GCA GCA §§ 60.80 readsas 60.80 reads asfollows: follows:

r[ People People v. Hattigi Hattig) Criminal Criminal CaseNo. Case No. CF0362-21 CF0362-21 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Enforce Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Plea Agreement Agreement Page 55of of11 ll r I

1 I

l l

1 (a) The Theattorney attorney for forthe thegovernment governmentand and the the attorney attorney for for the the defendant defendant or the defendant when acting defendant when acting pro pro se se may may engage in discussions with aa view discussions with view toward 2 reaching an agreement that, upon the theentering entering of a plea plea of ofguilty guiltyor orpolo nolocontenderen contendere 3 to a charged offense offense or or to a lesser lesser or or related related offense, offense, the attorney attorney for for the government government will move move for for dismissal dismissal ofofother other charges, charges, oror will will recommend recommend or or not not oppose oppose the the 4 imposition imposition ofofaa particular sentence, sentence, oror will will do both. The The court court shall shall not participate participate 5 in any such discussion. discussion.

6 8 8 GCA GCA §§60.80(a) 60.80(a)(emphasis (emphasis added). added). §§ 60.80 60.80 further further provides the Court's provides the Court's role role in in the the plea pie 7 bargaining process: process: 8

9 (b) (b) IfIfaaplea pleaagreement agreementhas has been been reached reached byby the the parties parties which which contemplates contemplates entry entry of of aa plea plea ofofguilty guiltyororpolo nolocontenderen contendere in in the the expectation expectation that that a specified 10 10 sentence will be imposed sentence will imposed oror that other charges before before the court court will will be dismissed, dismissed, the court shall shall require the disclosure of of the agreement agreement in in open open court at the time the 11 plea is offered. Thereupon Thereupon thethe court court may may accept or reject reject the the agreement agreement, or or may may 12 12 defer its decision as to to acceptance acceptance or or rejection rejection until there has has been an opportunity to consider consider the presentence report. report. 13 13 14 8 8 GCA GCA §§60.80(b) 60.80(b)(emphasis (emphasisadded). added). The Thestatute statutefurther further regulates regulates the the Court's Court's actions actions upon upo 14

15 15 acceptance or rejection acceptance or plea agreement. of aa plea rejection of See88GCA agreement. See GCA §§ §§ 60.S0(c)-(d). 60.80(c)-(d). The The Court Court reads section reads sectio

16 16 60.80 that thatthe theparties partiesmay maycome come to to an agreement agreement regarding regarding resolution resolution to a criminal matter, matter, but the 17 17 resulting formal plea plea agreement only becomesenforceable enforceable upon the the Court's Court's acceptance of of the plea pie 18 18 agreement agreement -- such such agreement agreement is subject subject to the approval approval of of the the Court Court as as prescribed prescribed in in sections section 19 19

20 80lb)-(d). See People v.v. Ch 60.80(b)-(d). iguina, 2003 Guam 11 Chiguina, 1] 10("[T]he 11 110 ("[T]he mandatory mandatory requirement requirement under unde

21 section 60.80(c) apparently apparently 'serves 'serves the the purpose purpose of of informing informing the defendant immediately that that the

22 22 agreement will be agreement will be implemented."') implemented."') (citing (citing Fed. R. R. Crum p. 11 Crim P. 11 advisory committee's committee's note note to to 1974 197 23 amendments amendments toto111(e)(3)). Further,section l(e)(3)). Further, section60.S0(f) 60.80(f)provides providesthat that"evidence "evidence... ..of ofan an offer offer to to plead plea 24 guilty.. guilty. .or of of statements made in statements made in connection connectionwith withany anyof of the the foregoing foregoing pleas pleas or offers, is not no 25

26 admissible in in any civil civil or or criminal criminal proceeding proceeding against against the person who who made madethe theplea pleaor oroffer." offer." 8

27 27 GCA GCA §§60.80(f) 60.S0(f)(emphasis (emphasis added). added). | 28 |

People v. v. Hattig,l Hattie;Criminal Case No. CF0362-21 Decision Decision and Motion to Enforce the and Order Re. Defendant's Motion the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 6 of of 11 11 1

I I

1 Guam Guam caselaw regarding plea caselaw regarding plea agreements agreements1sis not not particularly particularly silent silent on on the the issue issue of 2 enforcement enforcement of ofplea pleaagreements agreements - however,;the however,:theGuam GuamSupreme Supreme Court Court and and the related facts of those 3 1

cases dealt with with plea plea agreements agreements after execution of of the the plea, and more more importantly, ' importantly, following following a '

4 3 5 court's acceptance of ofthe the plea plea agreement.The Theinstant instantcase caseisisdistinguishable distinguishableininthat thatthis this Court Courthas ha

6 not accepted or or raj ected a plea agreement, rather an agreement may have been rejected been reached reached but but later

7 terminated by by the the People. People. 8 8 GCA 8 GCA §-§·60.80 60.80 is is based based on on proposed proposed Rulle 11(e) Rulle 1 l(e) of of the the Federal Federal Rules Rules of ofCriminal Crimina 9 Procedure and Standards Standards1.5, 1.5,2.2, 2.2,3.3, 3.3,and and3.4 3.4set setforth forthininABA, ABA, Project Project on on Minimum MinimumStandards Standard 10

11 11 for for Criminal JusticePleas Criminal Justice Pleasof of Guilty Guilty (Approved (Approved draft draft 1968). 1968).See SeeNotes Notestoto 88 GCA GCA §§ 60.80. 60.80.

12 12 Therefore, the Therefore, the Court Court turns to federal caselaw regarding the interpretation of turns to of Rule 11 11 for guidance guidanc 13 13 and instruction.44 See See People v. v. Chung, Chung, 2004 Guam ,r 13 Guam 22 1] 13 (The Chung Chung Court relied on on federal 14 14 caselaw interpreting Rule caselaw interpreting Rule 11 in its 11 in its analysis analysisof of 88GCA GCA §§ 60.50). 60.50). 15 // II 16 16

17 17 II//

18 18

19 19 3 3 The Court The Court cites to to two two court cases thatillustrates cases that distinction from the present case. this distinction illustratesthis case.TheThefacts factsofofPeople Peoplev.v.Mallo Mello, 20 2008 Guam 23, include. sentencing of include the sentencing of a defendant after the execution execution of ofaa plea pleaagreement. agreement. Said Said plea plea agreement agreemen gave discretion to the sentencing sentencing judge judge whether whether to to apply apply credit for time time served. served. See Mallo, 2008 Guam' See Mallo, Guam 23 111. ,r TheTh 21 plea plea agreement alsoalso included included language that that the the defendant defendant would would be liable to for any any restitution. restitution. SeeSee Id ,r The Id114. The Guam Supreme Supreme CourtCourt held held that that (1)(1) the the plea plea agreement agreementdid'notdid'notconstitute constituteaaknowing, knowing, intelligent, intelligent, and and voluntary voluntary waiver waiver ofhis 22 right to credit right to creditfor fortime timeserved, served,and and(2) (2)the thedefendant effectivelywaived defendanteffectively waived hishis arguments argumentsrelated relatedtotorestitution. restitution.SeeSeeIdId. ,r 1111 34-36, 52-57. 52-57. 23 The Court alsoalso cites to People v. v. Chiguina, Chiguina, 2003 Guam Guam 11, ll, wherein wherein thethe original trial court judgejudge accepted accepted the the terms term of ofthe theplea pleaagreement agreement but but delayed delayed sentencing until further disposition by the co-actors co-actors ~- however, however, upon upon the the former forme 24 court judge's trial court judge'sappointment appointmenttotothe theGuam GuamSupreme Supreme Court, Court, aa new newtrial trialcourt courtjudge judgewaswasassigned assignedand and sentenced sentenced the th defendant to a sentence that that deviated deviated from the terms of the plea plea agreement. agreement. See Chiguina, 2003 Guam See Chiguina, ,r,r 3-4. In Guam ll1111113-4. 25 this case, this the Guam case, the Guam Supreme Supreme Court held that Court held trial court the trial that the court was was empowered empowered by by §§ 60.80(c) 60.80(c) toto sentence sentence the the defendant defendan to a sentence more favorable sentence more favorable than than what what was proviMd provided in the plea plea agreement.See agreement. See Id. 1112. ,r 12. . 4 26 4 TheChiguina The Chiguina Court Court recognized that "under "under a majority majority of ofjurisdictions, jurisdictions, including includingthose those who follow followthe the Federal Federal Rules Rule of Criminal of Criminal Procedure, Procedure, the the trial trial court's court'sbroad broadsentencing discretion isis constricted sentencing discretion constricted when when the the court court accepts accepts the plea or the plea o 27 the plea agreement." Chiguina, 2003 agreement." Chiguina, Guam 11 2003 Guam ,r 8 !(emphasis in original). Guam ll 118i(emphasis Guam trial court court judges ju_dges are are not similarly similar! constricted by the the four fourcorners comers of ofananagreement agreement and and have have broader broader discretion discretion to to sentence sentence aa defendant defendant pursuant to the th 28 plea plea agreement. agreement. See SeeId. Ill ,r 'll 9. 9. However, However, this this does notiaffectthis doesnotiaffect thisCourt's Court'suse useofofcaselaw caselawtotointerpret interpretRule Rule11ll of of Federal Federa Rules of of Criminal Criminal Procedure, Procedure, especially given the distinction that the Court Court has neither accepted nor nor rejected rqecteal apnea ple agreement matter. agreement in this matter. E

People v. Hattig; Hattie, Criminal Case No. CF0362-21 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 77 of of 11 ll }

' 1 B. A plea plea agreement agreement is is only only effective effective upon upo'.n acceptance by the acceptance by the Court. Court. 2 law governing "The law governing the the interpretation interpretation of of plea agreements is an amalgam of of constitutional, 3 supervisory, and private contract law concerns." United States v. Novosel, Novosel, 481 1291 481 F.3d 1288, 1291 4 1

5 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United United States v. Wood, Wood, 378 378 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2004). Although a

66 plea agreement is a contract between the government and the defendant, "plea agreements are not

7 Simply creatures of of contract contract law. law. Rather Rather the the integrity integrity of our criminal justice system allows each simply creatures eac 8 side to withdraw withdraw from from a plea plea agreement agreement before before it is accepted accepted by the court." court." United States v. ! 9 J

Rosario-Cruzado, 396 F.Supp.3d 661, Rosario-Cruzado, 661, 6661 666E(W.D. (W.D. Va. Va. 2019). 2019). A plea agreement is only effective 10 10 I I : I

11 11 upon acceptance acceptance by the the cou11. court. See See Rosario-Cruzado at at 666. 666. "A "A plea plea bargain bargain standing standing alone alone is

12 12 without constitutional constitutional significance, significance; in it5e1f it~elf itit is aa mere mere executors executory agreement which, until agreement which, unti 13 13 embodied embodied by the judgment of of a court, court, apes does not not deprive deprive an an accused accused of of liberty liberty or or any any other othe 14 14 Novosei' at 1292 (emphasis added) (quoting Mabry constitutionally protected interest." Novosel Marry v. Johnson Johnson, 15 15 467 U.S. 504, 507, 104 S.Ct. S.ct. 2543, 2543, 81 LiEd. L.Ed. ad 2d 437 437 (1984). (1984). Certainly, Certainly, ififaacourt courtaccepts accepts aa plea pie 16 16

17 17 agreement, the court is bound to sentence by that agreement - however, however, upon upon aa court court rejecting a

18 18 plea agreement, the defendant may withdraw withdraw their their plea. See Rosario-Cruzado at at 666. 19 19 Rule 11 11 does not address whether there are circumstances under which as signed 20 plea agreement may be binding on the government prior toto the the defendant's defendant's entry of a guilty plea. The Supreme Supreme Court has held that when a prosecutor withdraws a plea 21 agreement before the defendant enters his plea, the defendant cannot specifically specyically enforce it. it. 22

23 23 Novosel at at 1293 1293 (emphasis added) added) (citing Marry, 467 U.S. at 511, (citing Mabry, 511, 104 104 S. S. Ct. Ct. 2543). 2543). 24 Conversely, the government government may withdraw withdraw aa plea plea agreement agreement before before the Court accepts it. 25 25 C. If If detrimental detrimental reliance upon a plea reliance upon plea agreement agreement is shown, shown, withdrawal withdrawal is not not 26 permitted. .

27 E

Although the government is not bound b~und by aa plea plea agreement agreement prior to its acceptance by a 28 28 court, "where where detrimental detrimentalreliance relianceisisshown, shown1,the thegovernment governmentmay maybe bebound bound even even before before the dlstrlct distric I

i f

People People v. v. Hattigf Hattig; Criminal Case No. CF0362-21 DeCision and Order Decision and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Defendant's l\'.'lotion Motion to to Enforce Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement f'Page Page 8 ofof 11 11 1 court accepts accepts the agreement." Id. the agreement." 'United States Id. (quoting 'United States v. v. Kuchinski 469 F.3d 853, 853, 857-58 (9th (9t 2 I n I 1 I Cir. 2006). C1r. 2006). However, the Norris However, the o rri s court has has declined declined to detrimental reliance to find detrimental withdra reliance on a wlthdrawn 3 plea agreement before a court's formal acceptance of the plea agreement agreement or or an an express express term tern in the 4 5 agreement agreement requiring requiring pre-plea pre-plea performance performance: 5

6 Absent the district Absent the district court's court's formal formal acceptance acceptance of of the defendant's guilty the defendant's guilty plea plea or or an an express provision in the plea agreement express provision requiring certain pre-plea performance, agreement requiring 7 we have consistently declined to recognize any bases for detrimental bases for detrimental reliance by 8 the defendant that would warrant specific defendant that specific performance performance ofof the the plea plea agreement agreement on due process process or or any any other grounds. grounds. 9 United States States v. v. Norris, Norris, 486 F.3d 1045, 1045, 1049 (8th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). added). "The realization 10 10

11 11 of whatever expectations the prosecutor and defendant have as a result of of their bargain depends

12 entirely on the approval of of the trial court. Surely neither party contemplates any benefit from the 13 13 agreement unless unless and until the trial judge approves the bargain and accepts accepts the the guilty guilty plea." Id. 14 (quoting United United States States v. McGovern, 822 822 F.2d F:2d 739, 744 (8th (Sth Cir. Cir. 1987)). 15 15 "The "The Government's Government's right right to to withdraw withdraw from from aa plea plea agreement agreement before before it is accepted accepted by the 16 16

17 17 district court is qualified by the requirement that the Government gain no unfair advantage from

18 18 the withdrawal in future future proceedings proceedingsagainst the defendant." Norris at 1049. An example of of such sue 19 . I • unfair advantages unfalr advantages includes includes "use "useatatthe thedefendant's defendant'ssubsequent subsequenttr1a1 trial of of statements statements the defendant defendan 20 made during the plea negotiations or in in the course of cooperating with with the the Government Government under under the th 21

22 terms of the ple_a plea agreement." Id. Id. 22

23 Here, the Court finds that the People were within their right to withdraw their plea offer to

24 24 Defendant Hattie Hattig prior prior to the Coult's Court's acceptance acceptance of ofit. it. The The Defendant Defendant requests requests this this Court Court to to order orde 25 enforcement of for the enforcement of the prior plea agreement agreement that that was agreed agreed to on October 13, 2023. See Deft. Deft.'s 26 Mot. At At2.2.However, However,such suchplea pleaagreement's agreement'seffectiveness effectiveness isisnot notdependent dependent on on the theagreement agreemen 27

. 28 28 between the parties or an acknowledgment of of the reached plea bargain. Rather, an ejective effective plea

People People v. v. Hattie,:Criminal Hattig,i Criminal Case Case No. CF0362-21 CF0362-21 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 99 of of 11 ll 1 agreement is solely dependent dependent on the approval and acceptance of of the plea agreement by the Court. Court. 2 2 By the the very very nature nature of of our our criminal criminal court court system, system, plea plea agreements agreements to resolve criminal matters are 3 distinct from contracts formed in the regular course of business. See Rosario-Cruzado at at 666. At 4

5 any time, the People may withdraw withdraw an an offer, and the Defendant may withdraw withdraw any offer offer vice versa,

66 even after an agreement agreement has been been reached reached by the the parties. parties. Because Because the effectiveness effectiveness of of the plea ple

77 agreement is solely dependent agreement is dependent on the Court's Court's approval, approval, so so too too does does any any detrimental detrimental reliance relianc 8 Defendant Hartig Hattie may have have had had because because of of the the prior prior agreement. agreement. For For the the Defendant Defendant to to expect expec 9 specific performance specific performance of an agreement, of an agreement, the the agreement agreement must must first effective, and be effective, first be and again, 10 10

11 effectiveness effectiveness isis determined determined by the Court's acceptance of by the of the the agreement pursuant to agreement pursuant to 88 GCA GCA §§ §§

12 80.60(b)-(c). Additionally, no showing has been made that the People have used statements made 80.60(b)-(c). Additionally, 13 13 by the the Defendant Defendant during during the the course course of of negotiations negotiations to their their unfair unfair advantage, advantage, and certainly the 14 People are prohibited of of such use. See Norris at 1049. Further, Further, the Defendant has failed to show 15 15 16 that a provision in the prior plea agreement requires specific performance by either side before the 16

17 17 plea plea agreement agreement was approved by this Court. See Id See Id.

18 18 Therefore, the Court Therefore, the Court finds finds that the People were within their right to withdraw withdraw the plea pie 19 19 agreement, and such agreement, and such agreement agreementwas wasnot noteffective effective pursuant pursuantto to 88 GCA GCA § 80.60. § 80.60. 20 20 D. The The Court Courtmay maynot notparticipate participateininany anyplea pleanegotiations negotiations between between the parties. 21

88 GCA GCA §§ 60.80(a) clearly prohibits 60.S0(a) clearly prohibits the the Court's Court's involvement involvement in in plea plea negotiations negotiations between betwee 22 22

23 23 the parties: parties: "The "The court shall notparticipate participateininany anysuch discussions." 88 GCA such discussions." GCA §60.80(a) § 60.S0(a) (emphasis (emphasi

24 24 added). Hattie argues that the People withdrew the prior added). Defendant Hattig prior plea plea agreement agreement because of 25 prosecutorial vindictiveness and therefore requests this Court to enforce the plea agreement. The 26 26 Defendant's Defendant's request request for for the the Court Court to enforce a prior plea agreement, especially in consideration of 27

28 28 the above analysis analysis finding finding that that plea plea agreements agreements are are only effective after a court's court's acceptance, acceptance,

People v. Hattie, Criminal Case No. v. Hattig, No. CF0362-21 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion toto Enforce Enforce the the PriOr Accepted Plea Agreement Prior Accepted Page Page 10 10 of of111I I

1 appears to appears to request requestthis thisCourt Courtto to"pierce "pierce the the veil" oftheir veil" of negotiations, so theirnegotiations, sototospeak, speak,and and interpret interpre 2 the People'ss conduct conduct as as vindictive. vindictive. The The Court Court declines declines to to find find or orspeculate speculate as as to to the the motivations motivation 3 for the the People to withdraw withdraw the plea agreement, the plea agreement, for making such aa finding or mere mere speculation 4

5 compels the Court Court to participate participate ininsuch suchdiscussions discussions as as prohibited prohibited by by section section 60.80(a).

6 APD APD Santos Santos supplied supplied the the Court Court with with transcripts transcripts from from events events that that occurred occurred before before another anothe

7 7 trial trial judge. See See APD APDSantos's Santos 'sSupp. Deel., Exhibit. Supp. Deck., Exhibs. A-C. However, However, the the Court Court does does not not find find the th 8 proceedings in proceedings in an unrelated unrelatedmatter matterbefore beforeaadifferent differentcourt courtrelevant relevanttotoits itsdetermination. determination.Therefore Therefore, 9 the to make the Court declines to any finding make any finding of ofprosecutorial prosecutorial vindictiveness vindictiveness in in respect respect to the parties' 10

11 11 plea agreement negotiations. Moreover, Moreover, the the Court Court finds finds that that the plea agreement is not enforceable

12 12 as to either party unless and until until accepted by the Court.

13 13 CONCLUSION 14 14 For the the above above reasons, the Defendant's reasons, the Defendant's Motion Motion to to Enforce Enforce the the Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Ple 15 15 16 Agreement is DENIED DENIED.I 16

17 17 S0 SO ORDERED this this 19th 19th day of of February, 2025.

19 19

20 20 HONO BLE MARIA T. CENZON 21 Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam Guam 22 22

23 23

24 SERVICE VIA VIA EMAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 25 copy ofthe copy? theoriginal original was was e-mailed e-mailed to:

26 AG r P060

27 nate- 1l46'TI e: Date:iJh]itTi !f-:5~("- e: 'P56p"~ 28 A-(l\,to.-..io A7 / v o r » ;G Qrww/ Deputy Clerk, S error Court of Guam

People v. Hattie, Criminal v. Hattig, Criminal Case No. No. CF0362-21l Decision Decision and and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Enforce the the Prior Prior Accepted Accepted Plea Agreement Page 11 ll of of11 11