People v. Ikelap

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0348-1O 7 )

)

8 )

VS. ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) (Motion to Dismiss Under People v. Rasauo)

)

10 )

)

11 SA TO IKE LAP , )

)

12 DOB: 06/1811961 )

Defendant. )

13 --------------------------)

14

15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on January 18, 2012, for a

17 hearing on Sato Ikelap's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Under People v. Rasauo. Assistant

~ Public Defender Pablo M. Aglubat represented Defendant Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins and Assistant Attorney General Lisa D. Hack appeared on behalf of the People of ~ 20 Guam ("the People"). The Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the ~ evidence, written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court hereby ~ 21

~\) 22 issues this Decision and Order.

23 BACKGROUND

24 A Complaint was filed in the above captioned case on April 27, 2010, charging

25 Defendant for Theft (As a Petty Misdemeanor). Complaint (Apr. 27, 2010). Accordingly,

26 Defendant was summoned to appear before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on June 23,

27 2010, to answer to the charges contained in the Complaint. Summons (May 21, 2010).

28 Defendant failed to appear for arraignment on June 23, 2010. Declaration and Recommendation

People of Guam v. Sato Ikelap (CM0348-10) Page I of 4

1 of Magistrate Court (June 24, 2010). The Magistrate Court noted that "reasonable and diligent 2 attempts were made by the Deputy Marshal to personally serve Defendant a copy of the 3 summons, but without success." Id. Consequently, a Bench Warrant was issued on July 2, 4 2010, with bail affixed at Five Hundred Dollars ($500). Bench Warrant (Jui. 2, 2010). On May 5 3, 2011, Defendant was picked up by the Guam Police Department pursuant to the outstanding 6 Bench Warrant. Return of Warrant (May 3, 2011). On that same day, a Return of Bench 7 Warrant was held and Defendant was appointed counsel and subsequently released. 8 Defendant was arraigned on May 11, 2011, and pleaded not guilty. Superior Court of 9 Guam Minute Entry Log No. 112834 (May 11, 2011). On June 20, 2011, Defendant filed a 10 Motion to Dismiss the Case on De Minimis Grounds. Def s Motion to Dismiss Case on De 11 Minimis Grounds (lun 20, 2011). The People opposed Defendant's motion to dismiss.

12 People's Opposition to Defs Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 4, 2011). The Court scheduled to hear

13 the motion on August 8, 2011. Defendant was not present. Consequently, the Court continued

14 the motion to dismiss for September 26, 2011. Defendant was not present at that hearing and

15 the Court continued the matter for October 24, 2011. The Court heard Defendant's motion on

16 October 24, 2011 and denied it on November 15,2011. Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss

17 on De Minimis Grounds (Nov. 15,2011).

18 On December 13, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under People v. Rasauo.

19 Defs. Motion to Dismiss Under People v. Rasauo (Dec. 13, 2011). The People filed an

20 opposition to Defendant's motion. People's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Jan 3, 2012).

21 The Court held a motion hearing on January 18, 2012, and now issues this Decision.

22 DISCUSSION

23 Defendant argues that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011

24 Guam 14. Defendant contends that the record does not indicate the reason for such delay

25 beyond the sixty day rule created by the decision in People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. Defs

26 Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Under People v. Rasuao (Dec. 13,2011). Defendant

27 further notes that he was not arraigned until one year after the People filed the Complaint. Id.

28

People of Guam v. Sato IkeJap (CM0348-1O) Page 2 of 4 1 The People oppose this motion arguing that good cause IS shown for the delay in

2 Defendant's arraignment. 3 The Supreme Court of Guam held that "unless good cause is shown, a Complaint shall 4 be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the 5 Complaint." See People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14, ~ 14. This Court notes that Rasauo II 6 articulated that "compliance with this new standard continues to require a case by case analysis 7 of whether or not the specific circumstances of any given case show good cause for delay 8 beyond the 60 day period normally required to comply with law." Rasauo II ~ 14. The holding 9 in Rasauo II is designed to provide a baseline standard, and not bind the hands of the trial court 10 in cases where deviation from this baseline is judged to be appropriate. Rasauo II ~ 14 11 In the instant case, Defendant was initially set for an arraignment on June 23, 2010. 12 Defendant failed to appear, thus compelling the Magistrate Court to recommend a Bench 13 Warrant. Declaration and Recommendation of Magistrate Court (Jun. 23, 2010). The Magistrate 14 Court noted that "reasonable and diligent attempts were made by the Deputy Marshal to 15 personally serve the defendant a copy of the summons, but without success." Id. Defendant's 16 address and employment information were unknown. Summons (May 21, 2010). A Bench 17 Warrant was issued on July 2, 2010. Pursuant to the Bench Warrant, Defendant was

18 apprehended by the Guam Police Department on May 3, 2011, nearly a year later. Return of

19 Warrant (May 3, 2011). "In view of the difficulty of locating people in a modem society and

20 the difficulty of proving that a defendant has been intentionally avoiding apprehension, [the lack

21 of good faith and due diligence standard] would place an impossible burden on law enforcement

22 and result in the dismissal of numerous cases." State v. Greenwood, 845 P.2d 971, 979 (Wash.

23 1993). Hence, where law enforcement agents demonstrate "due diligence" in attempting to

24 contact a defendant but are unable to do so, those defendants do not accrue the benefits of the

25 running of timing rules during periods where they are out of contact with the criminal justice

26 system. Id.

27 The Court held a Return of Warrant Hearing immediately after Defendant was

28 apprehended on May 3, 2011. Further, the Court appointed counsel for the Defendant and

People of Guam v. Sato Ikelap (CM0348-1O) Page 3 of 4 1 released him on a $500 unsecured bail. From that point, the Court scheduled Defendant's 2 arraignment for May 11, 2011. 8 G.C.A. § 45.3O(c) provides that the Court shall allow 3 reasonable time to a defendant to meet and confer with counsel prior to being arraigned. 4 Meeting with and discussing this with counsel allows a defendant to understand the significance 5 of the arraignment process as well as the defendant's rights, which are asserted or waived at 6 arraignment. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961). It is critical for a defendant to have this 7 understanding at time of arraignment. See e.g. Huston v. Com, 171 S.W.3d 743, 744-45 (Ky. B Ct. App. 2005). 9 Appropriately, the Court finds no violation committed by the People in this case 10 pursuant to the holding in Rasauo II. Defendant would have been arraigned within sixty days 11 prescribed by Rasauo II had he appeared on June 23, 2010, which totaled fifty-seven days from 12 the time the Complaint was filed. Likewise, eight days had passed from the moment Defendant 13 was brought to Court as a result of a Bench Warrant and his arraignment. This delay is 14 explained in the preceding paragraph which inure to the Defendant's benefit. 15 For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Under People v.

16 Rasauo. 17 CONCLUSION 1B By a preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 19 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Under People v. Rasauo.

20

21 SO ORDERED this 7 day of

22 Trial Setting is set for April 2. 2012, at lOa.m.

23

24

25

26

HAR 01 roft HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 27 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 2B ~Uitoriano Dlputya.t, Superior Court of 0.-

People of Guam v. Sato Ikelap (CM0348-1 0) Page 4 of 4