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-
5
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
25
26 26
27
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
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
I
I
1,
i
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
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 |
I
I
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
I
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
}
I
'
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
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.
18 18
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