People v. Joseph

Opinion

1626 JUN I 8 AM IO: 25

2

3

4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0339-25 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report N o.25-15418 )

8 vs. )

)

9 ) DECISION & ORDER ) RE. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 10 DERRECK DKSON JOSEPH, DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION )

DOB: 09/24/1997 11 )

12 Defendant.

________________ ))

13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on March 12, 2026, for a 14

15 hearing to address Defendant Derreck Dkson Joseph's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss for

16 Double Jeopardy Violation. The Defendant was present with counsel Public Defender Adam 17 Gunkel. Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alexander was present for the People of Guam 18 ("People"). Following the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement pursuant to 19 Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, CVR 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.1 of the Local 20

21 Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having duly considered the parties' briefings, oral

22 arguments, and the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision and Order GRANTING 23 the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation.

24 BACKGROUND

25 Based on events that occurred on or about June 17, 2025, the Defendant was charged with 26

27 VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER (As a Misdemeanor). See Magistrate's Compl. (Sep. 22,

28 2025). Specifically, he was charged with knowingly violating a court order filed on September

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25 20, 2024, in Criminal Case CF0375-24, ordering him "to stay away from the residence, dwelling,

2 school, day care center, place of employment, or any other specified place or from a specific

3 person, within five hundred feet (500') of that specified place or specified person." Id 4 Following a bail hearing, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy 5 Violation ("Motion to Dismiss") on February 3, 2026. Prior to disposition of the Motion to 6

7 Dismiss, the Defendant also asserted his right to a speedy trial pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60. 1

8 However, the forty-five-day period to bring trial is tolled in light of the Defendant's Motion to 9 Dismiss. The People subsequently filed a Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss ("Non- 10 Opposition"). The court heard oral arguments at a Motion Hearing on March 12, 2026, and 11 ultimately took the Motion to Dismiss under advisement.

12

13 DISCUSSION

14 Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "[n]o person shall be 15 'subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy oflife or limb."' See People v. Manila, 16 2005 Guam 6 ,-i 11 (quoting U.S. Const. Amend. V). These protections apply to Guam through§ 17 1421 b(u) of the Organic Act of Guam. Id "The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three 18

19 distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution

20 for the same offense after conviction; and multiple criminal punishments for the same offense." 21 People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ,-i 16 (citing United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,440 (1989), 22 as modified by Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997)).

23

24

25

1 26 Because the Defendant was detained at the time of arraignment, the court has forty-five (45) days to bring trial pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60(a). The Guam Supreme Court acknowledged that delays for the benefit of the defendant 27 constitute good cause for tolling the speedy trial clock. See Ungacta v. Superior Court of Guam, 2013 Guam 29 (arguing that "delays caused by, or for the benefit of the defendant constitute good cause for speedy trial purposes.").

28 This Motion to Dismiss is the type of delay by the Defendant, and for his benefit, that is good cause for speedy trial purposes. Therefore, the Defendant's speedy trial clock is tolled as of February 13, 2026.

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25

The Defendant argues that this prosecution is barred, because double jeopardy attached

2 when the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon imposed a seven-day sanction for the Defendant's violation

3 of a court order in CF0375-24. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss (Feb. 3, 2026). "In determining whether 4 a double jeopardy violation exists, the court must first determine whether jeopardy has previously 5 attached." Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ,r 18 (citing People v. Manila, 2005 Guam 6 ,r 23). Although 6

7 the People filed a Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, the court still has an obligation to

8 review the merits of the issue. 2

9 A. Jeopardy attached when Defendant Joseph received a seven-day sanction in CF0375- 10 24 for the same offense charged in this case.

11 "With regard to contempt, only criminal contempt sanctions, not civil contempt sanctions, 12 qualify as the initial jeopardy that prevents future criminal proceedings against the accused."

13 Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ,r 17 (citing Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 74 (1957); see also In re 14 Farr, 134 Cal. Rptr. 595, 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) ("[T]he preclusion of multiple prosecution ..

15

16 . applies to the criminal contempt process.")). "If the relief provided is a sentence of

17 imprisonment, it is remedial and civil if 'the defendant stands committed unless. and until he 18 performs the affirmative act required by the court's order[.]"' Id. ,r 19. "However, where the 19 sanction is to punish past misconduct, to vindicate the authority of the court, it is criminal." Id. ,r 20 20.

21

22 In this case, the court issued a seven-day sanction as a violation of the stay-away order

23 imposed as a condition of the Defendant's pretrial release in CF0375-24. See People v. Derreck 24

25

26

2 27 In Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, the Supreme Court of Guam held that "the failure to file a written opposition, the filing of a notice non-opposition, or the disregard of untimely filed papers" does not relieve the lower court of its 28 obligation to consider the merits of a motion before rendering its decision. Petition ofQuitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ,r,r 27-28.

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25

Joseph, CF0375-24 (Return of Warrant Hr'g Mins. at 10:08:29 - 14:28AM (July 14. 2025)). For

2 the Defendant's first violation in CF0375-24, the report indicated that the Defendant:

3 Failed to abide by the no contact/stay away order. On June 19, 2025, the undersigned received information from victim, Janel Cabe, that the Defendant 4 failed to abide by the no contact/stay away order. The undersigned contacted Ms.

5 Cabe, who emailed a written statement of the incident, that she provided to the Guam Police Department on June 18, 2025. According to the statement, the 6 Defendant visited the victim's workplace and called her twelve (12) times by 7 telephone. Also, that the Defendant had followed her while driving in Tamuning.

8 1st Violation Report, CF0375-24 (June 19, 2025). Pursuant to Torres, Judge Cenzon sanctioned 9 the Defendant for his past misconduct that occurred on June 18, 2025; not for the underlying

crimes charged in that case. Therefore, the court finds that jeopardy attached with that sanction 11 imposed in CF0375-24 for violating a condition of his pre-trial release.

12

13 B. Under Blockburger, Defendant Joseph's sanction for Contempt of Court in CF0375-

24 barred the subsequent criminal prosecution of the offense of Violation of a Court 14 Order in this case. 15 Similar to the Guam Supreme Court in Torres, this court must determine whether the 16 Defendant's initial criminal punishment under 7 GCA § 34101 bars a subsequent criminal 17 punishment under 9 GCA § 30.40(a)(3) for the same acts. See Torres, 2008 Guam ,r 40.

19 "Determining whether a court can punish a defendant under two distinct statutory provisions for

20 offenses arising out of a single act or transaction is a two-step analysis." Id. 21 "First, the court must determine whether the legislature has expressly authorized multiple 22 punishments ... Absent express authorization by the legislature, however, a presumption arises 23

24 that the same offense cannot be punished under two separate statutory provisions." Id. ,r 41

25 (internal citations omitted). Because Guam's legislature "has not expressly authorized multiple

26 punishments, and there is also no clear indication of legislative intent to do so[,] [t]his invokes 27 the presumption that if the two statutes proscribe the same conduct, punishment under the two 28

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25 separate statutory provisions is barred." Id. , 42. Therefore, "the court must then take the second

2 step in its analysis, employing Blockburger to determine whether the two statutes in effect punish

3 the same offense." Id. 4 "Unless each provision requires proof of an additional fact not required by the other, the 5 two crimes are deemed the same offense and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and 6

7 successive prosecution. Applying this test, courts have deemed offenses identical for purposes of

8 the Double Jeopardy Clause where the evidence required to support conviction on one prosecution

9 is sufficient to support conviction on a second prosecution." Torres, 2008, 43 (internal citations 10 omitted).

11 As one of the conditions of his pre-trial release, "Defendant is ordered to stay away from, 12

13 and have no Contact with the victim(s), either in person, through a third party, by telephone or

14 letter, email, text or any electronic devices, including any specified witness as follows: Janel Cabe 15 andD.J. (minor 2018)." See People v. DerreckJoseph, CF0375-24 (Order of Conditional Release 16 and Appearance Bond (Sep. 20, 2024)). 3 Upon his release, the Defendant acknowledged receipt 17 of his Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond, understanding that "a violation of this 18

19 order is a Contempt of Court and shall cause me to be arrested and be subject to possible Further

20 criminal charges ardor revocation of my pre-trial please." Id at 2. 21 "Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court" constitutes as one 22 of the acts Guam deems contempt of court. 7 GCA § 34101(a)(5). Among other violations within 23

24 9 GCA § 30.40, a violation of "an order requiring a person to stay away from the residence,

25 dwelling, school, day care center, place of employment, or any other specified place or from a

26

27

3 28 Although the Defendant was under the supervision of the Probation Services Division, he was not actively on probation because his case remained in pre-trial status.

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25 specified person, within five hundred feet (500') of the specified place or specified person" is a

2 punishable misdemeanor offense under Guam law. 9 GCA § 30.40(a) (3).

3 Although Violation of a Court Order lists more specific orders that a person must be 4 shown to have violated, both Contempt of Court and Violation of a Court Order require proof of 5 disobedience of a lawful order of the court. In light of this, Contempt of Court and Violation of a 6

Court Order in effect punish the same offense under Blockburger. Therefore, double jeopardy 7

8 bars this prosecution against the Defendant.

9 \\ 10 \\ 11 \\ 12

13 \\

14 \\ 15 \\ 16 \\ 17 \\ 18

19 \\

20 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 \\ 24

25 \\

26 \\ 27 \\ 28

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25

CONCLUSION

2 For reasons stated above, the court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

3 for Double Jeopardy Violation. 4

5

6 JUN 1'8 Z026 7 SO ORDERED _ _ _ _ _ _ __

8

9

11 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for Double Jeopardy Violation People v. Joseph, CM0339-25