IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 3 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0205-08 4 VS. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 5 DARREL DENNIS'FONUPIN ICHIN, ) ) 6 Defendant. ) 7 )
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed September 23, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on October 28, 2013. Assistant 12 Attorney General Sean Brown appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant Public 13 Defender Suresh Sampath represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral 14 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On April 1, 2008, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 17 under the influence of alcohol on or about April 27, 2007. The complaint was filed 18 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on April 30, 19 2008 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. There is no record that a summons or complaint was 20 served upon Defendant. Defendant failed to appear on April 30, 2008 and the Court entered a 21 bench warrant on May 2, 2008. More than five years later on June 4, 2013, the bench warrant 22 was served upon Defendant. On June 5, 2013, the Court appointed counsel and released him 23 that same day. Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013. 24 On September 23, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was 25 not promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 26 2011 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the 27 complaint should be dismissed. 28 Ill
Page 1 of 4 DISCUSSION 2 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 3 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 4 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies, "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 5 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 6 ld. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of
7 each case. ld. at~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial 10 context are instructional for the purposes of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60.10. People 11 v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the following good causes: 1) 12 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and 13 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; 14 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. 15 In this case, the Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013 and more than 60 days after 16 the complaint was filed on April 1, 2008. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's failure to 17 appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. However, there was a more substantial, subsequent 18 delay of five years and two months caused by an apparent failure by Superior Court marshals to 19 contact or serve Defendant with a bench warrant. Because the court record is devoid of any 20 justification for Superior Court marshals having failed to serve Defendant with a bench warrant 21 for over five years, this Court cannot find good cause exists for this delay. See Julian, 2012 22 Guam 26 at ~~ 24-26. Judicial delay in prompt arraignment is attributed to the Government. 23 Julian, 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, judicial officers 24 and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose 25 criminal charges. !d. (citing Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 26 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is not excused by more than five years of 27 judicial delay and the complaint shall be dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14.
28 ///
Page 2 of4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 2 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 3 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.1 0(a) and Rasauo, 2011 4 Guam 14. The prompt atraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 5 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 , 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or
6 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 7 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See id. at, 21 (an established 8 rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 9 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 10 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 11 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 12 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,, 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)).
13 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 14 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 15 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 16 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 17 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 18 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 19 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013 and more than five years and· 21 two months after the complaint was filed on April 1, 2008. The length of this delay may give 22 rise to a presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at, 49. The delay was caused, in 23 large part, by the failure to serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs 24 against the Government. Julian 2012 Guam 26 at, 22. Another possible cause for the delay 25 may have been an inability to locate and serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the 26 information necessary to determine whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and 27 the responsibility for the delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at 28 ,,J 45-46. Most importantly, the complaint caused no oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety
Page 3 of 4 or concern before Defendant appeared on June 5, 201 and there is no allegation of actual 2 prejudice in this matter. /d. at -n-n 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional 3 violation and against a dismissal with prejudice. 4 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the less'"serious 5 misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence clear 6 Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by Defendant. See 7 Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall be dismissed
8 without prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 3 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0205-08 4 VS. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 5 DARREL DENNIS'FONUPIN ICHIN, ) ) 6 Defendant. ) 7 )
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed September 23, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on October 28, 2013. Assistant 12 Attorney General Sean Brown appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant Public 13 Defender Suresh Sampath represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral 14 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On April 1, 2008, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 17 under the influence of alcohol on or about April 27, 2007. The complaint was filed 18 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on April 30, 19 2008 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. There is no record that a summons or complaint was 20 served upon Defendant. Defendant failed to appear on April 30, 2008 and the Court entered a 21 bench warrant on May 2, 2008. More than five years later on June 4, 2013, the bench warrant 22 was served upon Defendant. On June 5, 2013, the Court appointed counsel and released him 23 that same day. Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013. 24 On September 23, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was 25 not promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 26 2011 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the 27 complaint should be dismissed. 28 Ill
Page 1 of 4 DISCUSSION 2 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 3 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 4 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies, "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 5 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). 6 ld. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of
7 each case. ld. at~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial 10 context are instructional for the purposes of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60.10. People 11 v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the following good causes: 1) 12 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and 13 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; 14 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. 15 In this case, the Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013 and more than 60 days after 16 the complaint was filed on April 1, 2008. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's failure to 17 appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. However, there was a more substantial, subsequent 18 delay of five years and two months caused by an apparent failure by Superior Court marshals to 19 contact or serve Defendant with a bench warrant. Because the court record is devoid of any 20 justification for Superior Court marshals having failed to serve Defendant with a bench warrant 21 for over five years, this Court cannot find good cause exists for this delay. See Julian, 2012 22 Guam 26 at ~~ 24-26. Judicial delay in prompt arraignment is attributed to the Government. 23 Julian, 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, judicial officers 24 and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose 25 criminal charges. !d. (citing Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 26 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is not excused by more than five years of 27 judicial delay and the complaint shall be dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14.
28 ///
Page 2 of4 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 2 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 3 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.1 0(a) and Rasauo, 2011 4 Guam 14. The prompt atraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 5 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 , 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or
6 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 7 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See id. at, 21 (an established 8 rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 9 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 10 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 11 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 12 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,, 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)).
13 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 14 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 15 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 16 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 17 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 18 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 19 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2013 and more than five years and· 21 two months after the complaint was filed on April 1, 2008. The length of this delay may give 22 rise to a presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at, 49. The delay was caused, in 23 large part, by the failure to serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs 24 against the Government. Julian 2012 Guam 26 at, 22. Another possible cause for the delay 25 may have been an inability to locate and serve Defendant, but the entire record is devoid of the 26 information necessary to determine whether this delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and 27 the responsibility for the delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at 28 ,,J 45-46. Most importantly, the complaint caused no oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety
Page 3 of 4 or concern before Defendant appeared on June 5, 201 and there is no allegation of actual 2 prejudice in this matter. /d. at -n-n 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional 3 violation and against a dismissal with prejudice. 4 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the less'"serious 5 misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence clear 6 Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by Defendant. See 7 Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall be dismissed
8 without prejudice. 9 Ill IO Ill II Ill I2 CONCLUSION 13 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and I4 the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to promptly arraign the Defendant 15 pursuant to 8 GCA § 60.1 O(a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 16
18 SO ORDERED this~ day of January, 2014. 19
22 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II 23 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24
Page 4 of 4