People v. Le Fever

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE No~ 8F 0311-12 4 ) ) 5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 6 JON CARSON LEFEVER ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8

9 INTRODUCTION 10

11 This matter is before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo. The People of Guam are

12 represented by Assistant Attorney General Teri C. Tenorio. The Defendant was represented by 13 Assistant Public Defender Richard S. Dirkx. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers 14 presented, the Court now issues the following decision, granting Defendant's motion for leave 15

16 to file motions late.

17 BACKGROUND

18 On August 01, 2013, Defendant filed a paper entitled, Notice of Motion and Motion for 19 Leave of Court to File Motions Late. In it Defendant requests that the Court allow him to file a 20 motion after the date of the Court-ordered motion deadline. His motion is supported by a one- 21

22 paragraph memorandum that cites to his Sixth and Fourth U.S. Constitutional Amendment

23 rights. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Section 65.15 of Title 8 of the Guam Code regulates the filing of motions in a criminal 26 matter. It provides, "[a]ny defense, objection or request which is capable of determination 27 without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions may be 28 written or oral at the discretion of the judge." 8 GCA § 65.15. Page 1 of3 On its face Section 65.15 delegates the regulation of written or oral motions to the 2 discretion of the trial judge hearing the matter. To explain its minimum requirements the 3 Court looks to the requirements imposed upon other papers and motions. The majority of all 4 other motions brought before the Superior Court are regulated by Rule 7 of the Guam Rules of 5 Civil Procedure. Rule 7 provides, 6 An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made 7 during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The 8 requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of 9 the hearing of the motion.

10 !d. at 7(b)(l). Interpreting this rule the Guam Supreme Court has held that a party's failure to 11 assert the grounds for its request may warrant deniaL In re Estate of Concepcion, 2003 Guam 12 12 (Sup. Ct. Guam 2003). In 2008 the Guam Supreme Court explained the burden a moving 13 party bears when requesting relief. !d. 14 The Lamb court held that "In order to conduct a meaningful review, the parties must 15 articulate their arguments in a way that allows this court to apply recognized rules of law: It is 16 not sufficient for a party 'simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up 17 to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for 18 him his arguments ... ."'Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2, ~~ 34-36 (Sup. Ct. Guam 2008). 19 Upon review of the Court's decision in Lamb and the facial requirements of Rule 7 the Court 20 finds that the Lamb Court's interpretation applies equally to criminal motions. 21 In this case the Court is not persuaded that the Defendant has met the minimum moving 22

23 requirements of a written motion. 8 GCA § 65.15. Although Defendant asserts he is entitled

24 to his rights under 4th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, he fails to: assert or argue 25 the applicable rule allowing for his request; analyze and argue how any facts supporting his 26 request apply to a recognized standard which merits the relief he requests; and provide any 27

28 papers verifying or supporting his material facts.

Page 2 of3 Absent the Defendant providing this information the Court is left to, "to discover and 2 rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments." Lamb, 3 2008 Guam 2, ~~ 34-36. Placing such a burden upon the Court undermines the ideals of due 4 process and fairness. 5

6 Defendant is hereby placed on notice of the above standard and the Court's intention to

7 apply it to the papers brought before it. In light of the People's non opposition and the 8 discretion granted to the Court the Defendant is allowed a reprieve from the application of the 9 above standard. 10 CONCLUSION II

12 Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant's request for leave to file late 13 motions. The Government shall have until September 5th, 2013, to file its opposition to 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Defendant shall have until September 12th, 15 2013, to file his reply. 16

18 SO ORDERED, this;lJ__ day of ~ 2013.

21 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22

Page 3 of3