lllllllll II ll
FILED 5u?~ERi€tR CGURT QI: GUA?'§ 1 zuzstlna Ii PM he 51- 2 CLERK OF CQURT
3 By# 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0381-19 9 vs. 10
11 RON CHONOG JOHN, DECISION AND ORDER aka Ron Choniog John 12 DOB: 06/10/2003 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on December 12, 2019, upon
17 t he D efend a nt ' s M ot ion t o T r a ns fer t o F a m ily C ou r t filed Sept em ber 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 ( " M ot ion" ) .
18 Defendant Ron Cho fog John ("Defendant") is represented by Assistant Public Defender
19 William Bischoff. Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio represented the People of
20 Guam ("the People"). Having reviewed the pleadings and having heard oral arguments in this
21 matter, the Court issues the following Decision and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On July 18, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment and charged the Defendant with
24 nine (9 ) cou nts of Bu r g lar y (as a Second Deg r ee F elony), one (1 ) cou nt of Theft (as a P etty
25 Misdemeanor), and one (1) count of Attempted Theft (as a Petty Misdemeanor), S e e Indictment
26 (J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 1 9 ). Accor ding to the Declar ation attached to the M ag istr ate's Complaint, on or
27 about June 29, 2019, Guam Police Department ("GPD") officers responded to a burglary report
28 at Ely's Auto in Dededo. The GPD officers met with the owners of Ely's Auto who stated that I'll-ll llllllllll I I'll I l Il l l ll ll lull I'll\ lull l WH l l
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381 - 19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 nine (9) automobiles belonging to customers of Ely's Auto appeared to have been broken into
2 and rummaged through. The GPD officers reviewed security video footage of the incident and
3 identified the Defendant, along with two others, as suspects. With the consent of his mother, the
4 Defendant agreed to an interview. During the interview, the Defendant admitted that he, along
5 with two other individuals, had jumped the gate at Ely's Auto to see if there was anything in the
6 cars worth steading.
7 On September 10, 2019, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Transfer to Family
8 Court. The People filed their Opposition on September 20, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the
9 Court heard arad arguments on the instant motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court
10 took the matter under advisement.
11 DISCUSSION
12 Title 19 GCA § 5106 provides the mechanism by which the Superior Court can obtain
13 "adult" jurisdiction over a minor. People v. Gomia, 2017 Guam 3 1 10. The statute reads, in
14 relevant part, " . [a] child who is sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time he committed
15 the offense for which he is chargedshall automatically be charged as an adult for any act which
16 would constitute a felony of the first or second degree along with any acts which are
17 misdemeanors or felonies of the third degree which are part of the same scheme of criminal
18 activity as the felony." 19 GCA § 5106(a) (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the mandates of
19 19 GCA § 5106(a), Guam law also authorizes courts to transfer the matter to the jurisdiction of
20 the Family Court. 19 GCA §5106(d). Transfer or decertification to Family Court is permissible
21 upon a finding based on "clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the minor
22 would be amendable to the care, treatment, and training programs available through the
23 facilities of the juvenile court " ld In evaluating whether transfer to Family Court is
24 proper, the Court should consider the following factors:
25 (1) the age of the minor, 26 (2) the history of the minor, including: (A) any previous delinquent or criminal history of the minor; 27 (B) any previous abuse or neglect history of the minor; and (C) any mental health, physical or educational history of the minor, or a 28 combination of these factors,
Page 2 of 7 Decision and Order Criminal Case N o . CF0381-19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
(3) the circumstances of the offense, including: 1 (A) the seriousness of the offense; 2 (B) whether the minor is charged through accountability; (C) whether there is evidence the offense was committed in an aggressive 3 and premeditated manner, (D) whether there is evidence the offense caused seriously bodily harm; 4 and 5 (E) whether there is evidence the minor possessed a deadly weapon, (4) the advantages of treatment within the juvenile justice system including, 6 whether there are facilities or programs, or both, particularly available in the juvenile system, 7 (5) whether the security of the public requires sentencing under Title 9, Chapter 8 80 of the Guam Code Annotated; ( 6 ) the m ino r 's histo r y o f ser vices, inclu d ing the m ino r 's willingness to 9 participate meaningfully in available services; 10 (7) whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the minor can be rehabilitated before the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction; and 11 (8) the adequacy of the punishment or services.
12 LL Further, in considering the factors above, the Court shall give greater weight to the
13 seriousness of the alleged offense and the minor's history of juvenile delinquency than any
14 other factor. ld (emphasis added) .
15 I. Age and History of the Minor
16 At the time of the alleged offense, the Defendant was sixteen (16) years old. Therefore,
17 at the time the Defendant committed the alleged offense, the Defendant was properly charged as
18 an adult pursuant to the Family Court Act. See 19 GCA § 5106(a) (a child who is sixteen (16)
19 years of age or older atthe time of the alleged offense shall automatically be charged as an adult
20 for any act which would constitute a felony of the first or second degree).
21 The Defendant has several juvenile cases that the Court is aware of: JD014l-16,
22 JD0142-16, JD0040-16, and JD0092-16. Further, in addition to the instant matter, the Defendant
23 has one other active adult criminal case, CF0031-20. In that felony case, the Defendant is being
24 charged with Theft by Receiving via Complicity (as a Second Degree Felony), and was also
25 properly charged as adult pursuant to 19 GCA § 5106(a).
26 At the evidentiary hearing in this matter, the Court heard testimony from two of the
27 Defendant's social workers, Sollie Onedera ("Ms. Onedera") and Vivian Yee ("Ms. Yee"). Ms.
28 Onedera, a Social Worker at the Department of Youth Affairs ("DYA"), testified that from 2017
Page 3 of 7 um I
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381-19, People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 to 2018, she worked with the Defendant at the DYA Aftercare Program for approximately ten
2 (10) months in conjunction with the Defendant's most recent juvenile case. At the hearing, the
3 Court noted that despite having completed the DYA Aftercare Program, the Defendant managed
4 to pick up adult felony charges less than a year after the closure of the respective juvenile case.
5 Ms. Onedera however, testified that she believes that the Defendant could still benefit from
6 juvenile services. Ms. Yee, a Social Worker at I Famaguon'ta, testified that upon review of the
7 Defendant's juvenile history, rehabilitation was unlikely due to the lack of commitment from
8 the Defendant's family. Ms. Yee further testified that the Defendant would need to be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
lllllllll II ll
FILED 5u?~ERi€tR CGURT QI: GUA?'§ 1 zuzstlna Ii PM he 51- 2 CLERK OF CQURT
3 By# 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0381-19 9 vs. 10
11 RON CHONOG JOHN, DECISION AND ORDER aka Ron Choniog John 12 DOB: 06/10/2003 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on December 12, 2019, upon
17 t he D efend a nt ' s M ot ion t o T r a ns fer t o F a m ily C ou r t filed Sept em ber 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 ( " M ot ion" ) .
18 Defendant Ron Cho fog John ("Defendant") is represented by Assistant Public Defender
19 William Bischoff. Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio represented the People of
20 Guam ("the People"). Having reviewed the pleadings and having heard oral arguments in this
21 matter, the Court issues the following Decision and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On July 18, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment and charged the Defendant with
24 nine (9 ) cou nts of Bu r g lar y (as a Second Deg r ee F elony), one (1 ) cou nt of Theft (as a P etty
25 Misdemeanor), and one (1) count of Attempted Theft (as a Petty Misdemeanor), S e e Indictment
26 (J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 1 9 ). Accor ding to the Declar ation attached to the M ag istr ate's Complaint, on or
27 about June 29, 2019, Guam Police Department ("GPD") officers responded to a burglary report
28 at Ely's Auto in Dededo. The GPD officers met with the owners of Ely's Auto who stated that I'll-ll llllllllll I I'll I l Il l l ll ll lull I'll\ lull l WH l l
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381 - 19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 nine (9) automobiles belonging to customers of Ely's Auto appeared to have been broken into
2 and rummaged through. The GPD officers reviewed security video footage of the incident and
3 identified the Defendant, along with two others, as suspects. With the consent of his mother, the
4 Defendant agreed to an interview. During the interview, the Defendant admitted that he, along
5 with two other individuals, had jumped the gate at Ely's Auto to see if there was anything in the
6 cars worth steading.
7 On September 10, 2019, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Transfer to Family
8 Court. The People filed their Opposition on September 20, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the
9 Court heard arad arguments on the instant motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court
10 took the matter under advisement.
11 DISCUSSION
12 Title 19 GCA § 5106 provides the mechanism by which the Superior Court can obtain
13 "adult" jurisdiction over a minor. People v. Gomia, 2017 Guam 3 1 10. The statute reads, in
14 relevant part, " . [a] child who is sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time he committed
15 the offense for which he is chargedshall automatically be charged as an adult for any act which
16 would constitute a felony of the first or second degree along with any acts which are
17 misdemeanors or felonies of the third degree which are part of the same scheme of criminal
18 activity as the felony." 19 GCA § 5106(a) (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the mandates of
19 19 GCA § 5106(a), Guam law also authorizes courts to transfer the matter to the jurisdiction of
20 the Family Court. 19 GCA §5106(d). Transfer or decertification to Family Court is permissible
21 upon a finding based on "clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the minor
22 would be amendable to the care, treatment, and training programs available through the
23 facilities of the juvenile court " ld In evaluating whether transfer to Family Court is
24 proper, the Court should consider the following factors:
25 (1) the age of the minor, 26 (2) the history of the minor, including: (A) any previous delinquent or criminal history of the minor; 27 (B) any previous abuse or neglect history of the minor; and (C) any mental health, physical or educational history of the minor, or a 28 combination of these factors,
Page 2 of 7 Decision and Order Criminal Case N o . CF0381-19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
(3) the circumstances of the offense, including: 1 (A) the seriousness of the offense; 2 (B) whether the minor is charged through accountability; (C) whether there is evidence the offense was committed in an aggressive 3 and premeditated manner, (D) whether there is evidence the offense caused seriously bodily harm; 4 and 5 (E) whether there is evidence the minor possessed a deadly weapon, (4) the advantages of treatment within the juvenile justice system including, 6 whether there are facilities or programs, or both, particularly available in the juvenile system, 7 (5) whether the security of the public requires sentencing under Title 9, Chapter 8 80 of the Guam Code Annotated; ( 6 ) the m ino r 's histo r y o f ser vices, inclu d ing the m ino r 's willingness to 9 participate meaningfully in available services; 10 (7) whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the minor can be rehabilitated before the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction; and 11 (8) the adequacy of the punishment or services.
12 LL Further, in considering the factors above, the Court shall give greater weight to the
13 seriousness of the alleged offense and the minor's history of juvenile delinquency than any
14 other factor. ld (emphasis added) .
15 I. Age and History of the Minor
16 At the time of the alleged offense, the Defendant was sixteen (16) years old. Therefore,
17 at the time the Defendant committed the alleged offense, the Defendant was properly charged as
18 an adult pursuant to the Family Court Act. See 19 GCA § 5106(a) (a child who is sixteen (16)
19 years of age or older atthe time of the alleged offense shall automatically be charged as an adult
20 for any act which would constitute a felony of the first or second degree).
21 The Defendant has several juvenile cases that the Court is aware of: JD014l-16,
22 JD0142-16, JD0040-16, and JD0092-16. Further, in addition to the instant matter, the Defendant
23 has one other active adult criminal case, CF0031-20. In that felony case, the Defendant is being
24 charged with Theft by Receiving via Complicity (as a Second Degree Felony), and was also
25 properly charged as adult pursuant to 19 GCA § 5106(a).
26 At the evidentiary hearing in this matter, the Court heard testimony from two of the
27 Defendant's social workers, Sollie Onedera ("Ms. Onedera") and Vivian Yee ("Ms. Yee"). Ms.
28 Onedera, a Social Worker at the Department of Youth Affairs ("DYA"), testified that from 2017
Page 3 of 7 um I
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381-19, People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 to 2018, she worked with the Defendant at the DYA Aftercare Program for approximately ten
2 (10) months in conjunction with the Defendant's most recent juvenile case. At the hearing, the
3 Court noted that despite having completed the DYA Aftercare Program, the Defendant managed
4 to pick up adult felony charges less than a year after the closure of the respective juvenile case.
5 Ms. Onedera however, testified that she believes that the Defendant could still benefit from
6 juvenile services. Ms. Yee, a Social Worker at I Famaguon'ta, testified that upon review of the
7 Defendant's juvenile history, rehabilitation was unlikely due to the lack of commitment from
8 the Defendant's family. Ms. Yee further testified that the Defendant would need to be
9 reevaluated, and that a new treatment and services plan be implemented. Finally, both Social
10 Workers testified that the Defendant was enrolled in special education classes and was taldng
11 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications. Ms. Yee testified that the
12 Defendant, at his mother's direction, refused medication. However, Ms. Yee testified that both
13 the Defendant and his mother were agreeable to medication management.
14 Nevertheless, in considering the first two factors above, absent any specific finding as to
15 the Defendant's mental health status or history, the Court finds that the Defendant's delinquent
16 criminal history and current second degree felony charges weigh against transferring the
17 Defendant's case to Family Court.
18 II. Circumstances of the Offense
19 Here, the Defendant is being charged with nine counts of Burglary, Theft, and
20 Attempted Theft. The Court acknowledges that these charges against the Defendant are neither
21 violent nor particularly heinous. Neither is the Defendant alleged to have been in possession of
22 a deadly weapon nor is he alleged to have caused bodily harm towards another person. The
23 Court recognizes that burglary and theft are indeed serious crimes and that there is a great
24 public interest in protecting the public from burglary and theft. However, given the nonviolent
25 nature of the alleged offenses and other circumstances, the Court finds that this factor weighs
26 slightly in favor of decertification to Family Court.
28 1 A Forensic Evaluation has neither been filed nor requested in this matter.
Page 4 of 7 I
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381-19,People v. Ron Cho fog John
111. Advantages of Treatment in the Juvenile System, the Defendant's History of 1 Treatment, and Likelihood of Rehabilitation. 2 Indeed, there are treatment programs in the Family Court, such as a theft diversion 3 program, available to minors who commit theft crimes. However, although the therapeutic and 4 rehabilitative focus of the juvenile system is generally preferred over the harshness of 5 incarceration and fines imposed in adult criminal courts, the Defendant must also demonstrate a 6 likelihood of rehabilitation. In other words, it is not enough that the Defendant establish that the 7 Family Court is preferable, but the Defendant must also convince the Court that he would avail 8 of such benefits and succeed. 9 The Court finds that the Defendant is not a suitable candidate amenable to treatment in 10 the Family Court system. As aforementioned, in addition to the instant felony case, the 11 Defendant has another active adult felony case in CF0031-20, which involves slightly similar 12 offenses to the offenses charged herein. Further, the Court notes that the Defendant was on pre- 13 trial release in the instant matter when the Defendant picked up the new charges in CF0031-20. 14 Finally, according to the testimony from the Defendant's social workers, the Defendant has a 15 history of juvenile rehabilitative services and was afforded the care, treatment, and training 16 programs of the juvenile court. Since the Defendant's most recent juvenile matter closed in 17 2018, and despite treatment already offered by the Family Court, the Defendant continues to 18 find himself in trouble with the justice system and managed to obtain two second-degree felony 19 cases. Thus, by his actions, the Defendant has shown that he is not amenable to obeying the law 20 nor that he actually benefited from any prior rehabilitation through the Family Court system. 21 Accordingly, this factor weighs against decertification. 22 IV. Security of the Public 23 As determined above, the charges against the Defendant are nonviolent. Certainly, the 24 Court recognizes that the charges against the Defendant are serious crimes and that there is a 25 great public interest in protecting the public from burglary and theft. Further, as previously 26 noted, the Defendant was on pre-triad release in the instant matter when the Defendant was 27 indicted in CF003l-20. Thus, considering the Defendant's history and the closeness in time 28 between the Defendant's two active felony theft cases, punishment pursuant to Title 9 Chapter
Page 5 of 7 IIIIIIHII ll I II I'll
Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0381-19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 80 might be necessary to deter the Defendant from repeating this recent pattern of alleged
2 criminal activity. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transferring the
3 matter to Family Court.
4 v. Adequacy of Punishment
5 If this matter is transferred to Family Court, the Family Court would retain jurisdiction
6 over the Defendant until the Defendant Tums twenty-one (21) years old. 19 GCA § 5105. The
7 Defendant is currently sixteen (16) years old and will be turning seventeen (17) in
8 approximately three months. Thus, if the Court chooses to decertify the Defendant, the Family
9 Court would retain jurisdiction for a maximum of four (4) years. ld On the other hand, if
10 convicted of the greatest charge, that is, Burglary (as a Second-Degree Felony), the Defendant
11 would be subject to a minimum sentence of five (5) years without suspension, with a maximum
12 sentence of up to ten (10) years imprisonment. 9 GCA § 37.20(b). The Defendant, however,
13 m a y a l s o be s e nt e nc e d a s a f i r s t - t i m e of f e nd e r a nd w ou l d r e c e i v e u p t o f i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s
14 imprisonment in lieu of the standard sentencing range. ld If convicted for the less serious
15 crimes, the Defendant could possibly serve a comparable amount of time as he would spend in
16 the Family Court system. Therefore, in comparing the Family Court's maximum jurisdiction to
17 the possible sentence that could be imposed if the Defendant is convicted, the Court finds the
18 range is marginally proportional. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs slightly in
19 favor of decertification to Family Court.
20 Having analyzed the factors above, the Court finds that the factors taken together weigh
21 against decertification and transfer to Family Court. S e e 19 GCA § 5 l06(d) (in considering the
22 above factors, the Court s h a l l give greater ' w e i g h t t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of the alleged offense and
23 the minor's history of juvenile delinquency than any other factor (emphasis added)). The Court
24 does not find that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated "that the best interest of the
25 minor would be amenable to the care, treatment, and training programs available through the
26 facilities of the juvenile court." Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Transfer to Family
27 Court is DENIED.
28 //
Page 6 of 7 Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF038l-19; People v. Ron Cho fog John
1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Motion to Transfer to Family Court is
3 DENIED. 4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED fun 112m I
9 I . HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 10 Judge, Superior Court of Guam ll
23 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 24 I ackno .I edge that a copy of the or global hereto was placed in the 25 court box of:
26 AIPU 27 Date: 3 Lu t o TI i v ( we 1
Deputy Clem ,Sum r rCoui Guam 28
Page 7 of 7