People v. Jetero

Opinion

Fi LED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

202~ J~M -3 PH ti: 36 2 CLERK OF COURT 3

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0439-19 7 GPD Police Report No.: 19-21598

8 vs.

9 CUDDY JETERO, DECISION AND ORDER DOB: 03/03/2001 Re: Motion for Reconsideration 10

11 Defendant.

13 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on October 3, 2023, for a 14 hearing on Defendant Cuddy Jetero' s ("Defendant") Motion for Reconsideration. Present at the 15 hearing were: Defendant Cuddy Jetero ("Defendant") with counsel Assistant Public Defender 16 Peter Sablan, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shuck for the People. 17

BACKGROUND

19 On November 14, 2019, Defendant entered a guilty plea to ASSAULT (As a 20 Misdemeanor) and CRIMINAL MISCHIEF (As a Misdemeanor). Defendant was sentenced to 21 two years of imprisonment at the Department of Corrections, all but the mandatory 48 hours 22 suspended, with credit for time served. See J. p. 2 (Jun. 16, 2020). 23

24 On July 6, 2022, Probation filed a 4th Violation Report indicating that Defendant failed 25 to obey all laws of Guam and was charged in CF0445-22 for Burglary to a Motor Vehicle (As a 26 2nd Degree Felony) and Theft of Property (As a Petty Misdemeanor). That same day, Probation 27 filed a 5th Violation Report indicating that Defendant failed to do the following: (I) report 28 monthly, (2) complete Client Services and Family Counseling intake and assessment, (3) to

2 make payment towards $250.00 court fine and $80.00 court costs, and (4) perform and complete

3 I 80 hours community service. Then on July 15, 2022, the Court issued an Order and Penal 4 Summons. 5 About two months later, on September 6, 2022, Probation filed a 6th Violation Report 6 indicating that Defendant failed to not possess or consume any illegal controlled substances. 7

8 Then on September 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order and Summons, again.

9 On October 5, 2022, Probation filed a 7th Violation Report indicating that Defendant IO failed to submit a urinalysis test. On December 13, 2022, the Court issued yet another Order and II Summons. 12

13 A hearing on the 4'\ 5t\ 6t\ and 7th violations was held on January 26, 2023, wherein

14 Defendant failed to appear, and the Court issued a warrant for Defendant's arrest, setting bail at 15 $1,000 cash. Defendant was committed to the Department of Corrections on March 3, 2023, and 16 on March I 0, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the return of warrant and the 4t\ 5t\ 6th , and 7th 17 violations. The Court ruled from the bench, revoking Defendant's probation and sentencing 18

19 Defendant to two (2) years of incarceration at the Department of Corrections, with credit for

20 time served. On April 27, 2023, the Court issued an Order after Hearing memorializing its 21 ruling. 22 On March 10, 2023, Defendant filed the Motion for Reconsideration, in which 23 Defendant offered no argument but merely stated that Defendant "had a difficult time 24

25 completing the required conditions and even at some parts of his probation, he was alleged to

26 have committed new crimes." Mot., at I. The only authority that Defendant offered is 9 GCA 27 Section 80.66(b ), noting that the Court has authority to sentence a defendant who has been 28

Page2 of4 revoked to any sentence that might have been imposed originally, followed by a request to

2 impose an amount of incarceration time less than the maximum sentence.

3 On March 20, 2023, the People filed their opposition, arguing that Defendant "has failed 4 entirely to present new evidence, show clear error, a change in controlling law, and thus fails to 5 demonstrate any proper basis for reconsideration," and that Defendant wishes to avail himself of 6 arguments he already presented or were already available at the time of the Court's decisions. 7

8 Opp., at 2. Defendant filed no reply to the opposition.

9 On October 3, 2013, the Court heard arguments on the Motion for Reconsideration, 10 during which Defendant requested the Court reconsider and reduce the sentence to one (I) year. II The People opposed the reduction as being statutorily impermissible. The Court subsequently 12

13 took the matter under advisement.

14 DISCUSSION 15 Post-judgment motions for reconsideration may be filed in criminal cases. U.S. v. 16 Martin, 226 F.3d l042 (9 th Cir. 2000). Where no rule of criminal procedure addresses motions 17 for reconsideration, the standards applied to such motions in civil cases are applicable to 18

19 criminal cases. See, e.g. U.S. v. Lucarelli, 490 F.Supp.2d 295 (D. Conn. 2007).

20 Motions for reconsideration are appropriate where the trial court: (1) is presented with 21 new evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 22 intervening change in controlling law. Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1 ,r JO. 23 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant has not presented any new evidence, 24

25 demonstrating that the Court's previous decision was in error or manifestly unjust, or shown

26 any intervening change in controlling law. Without any basis for reconsideration save 27

Page3 of4 Defendant's allegations that he had difficulty completing the required conditions of his

2 probation, the Court must DENY Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

3 CONCLUSION 4 Having reviewed the record, pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court hereby 5 DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. 6

7 JA_N_0_3_2_02_4_ IT IS SO ORDERED _ _ 8

9 •

HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

17 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL 1 acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 18 1/6, tp.rc 19

20 Date: I /1 /4y Time: 1' '¥:' 1

}4t!, t✓I Cabk a-( 21 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam

Page4of4