IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 7\1 r->j'
) CRIMINA~ eASE NO. CM0395-11 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER JOCELYN REBECCA JESUS LEON ) 6 GUERRERO, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 8
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed February 6, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on February 25, 2013. Assistant 12 Attorney General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant 13 Public Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having considered the 14 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following 15 Decision and Order. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On March 30, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 18 under the influence of alcohol on or about April 16, 2010. The complaint was filed 19 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on April 6, 20 2011 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. Defendant failed to appear on April 6, 2011 and the Court 21 1 entered a bench warrant on April 11, 2011 which included Defendant's contact information. 22 More than a year later on October 24, 2012, the bench warrant was served upon Defendant and 23 the Court appointed her counsel and released her that same day. Defendant was arraigned on 24 October 31,2012. 25 On January 23, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because she was not 26
27 1 The bench warrant indicated Defendant's address and the citation indicated Defendant's address and contac
28 information. However, the record is devoid of any attempts to contact or serve Defendant with the warrant betwee Aprilll, 2011 and October 24,2012.
Page 1 of 4 .... promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011
2 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 3 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that the complaint can only be 4 dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual pr ~udice, bad faith or s misconduct. 6 DI USSION 7 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint hall be dismissed where a 8 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo,
9 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 tO GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10 a).
II /d. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstance of 12 each case. /d. at, 14.
13 1. Good Cause to D I y Prompt Arraignment 14 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial Is context are instructional for the purpo es of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60. 10. People
16 v. Julian 2012 Guam 26 , 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the fo llowing g d cau : 1)
17 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits th defendant; 3) unfore een circumstance ·and
18 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flore , 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40;
19 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 1 I; Quinata v. uperior Court, 2010 Guam 8 36. 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on October 31 , 2012, which is more than 60 days 21 after th complaint was filed on March 30, 201 1. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's 22 failure to appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25, and a ubsequent delay of more than a year
23 may have been caused by the failure to contact or serve Defendant with a bench warrant. The
24 affidavit on ftle memorializing the xecution of the warrant reflect the arresting marshal
25 received the bench warrant on October 24, 2012 and executed it upon Defendant the same day. 26 The record is d void of any attempts to locate Defi ndant prior to October 24, 2012. Judicial
27 delay in prompt arraignm nt is attributed to th Government. Julian, 201 2 Guam 26 at~ 22.
28 Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, court judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all
Page 2 of4 share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose criminal charges. ld. (citing 2 Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the 3 untimely arraignment is not excused by more than a year of judicial delay in the service of a 4 bench warrant that included Defendant's contact information and the complaint shall be 5 dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 6 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 7 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 8 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 9 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 10 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ,-r 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 11 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 12 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See !d. at ,-r 21 (an l3 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 14 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 15 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length ofthe delay; 16 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 17 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,-r,-r 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 18 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors direct whether to 19 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness ofthe offense; 2) the facts 20 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 21 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 22 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025,2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 23 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 24 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 25 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on October 31, 2012, more than one year after the 26 complaint was filed on March 30, 2011. The length of this delay may give rise to a presumption 27 of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at ,-r 49. The delay was caused, in part, by the failure to 28 serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the Government.
Page 3 of 4 J Julian 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Another possible cause for the delay may hav been an inability 2 to locate and s rve Defendant, but th entire r cord is devoid of the information necessary to 3 detennine whether this delay was deliberate negligent or justified and the responsibility forth 4 delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores 2009 Guam 22 at 45-46. Most s . importantly, the complaint caused no oppres ive pretrial incarceration, anxiety or cone m 6 before Defendant appeared on October 24, 2012, and th re is no all gation of actual prejudice in 7 this matter. !d. at 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional violation and 8 against the Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 7\1 r->j'
) CRIMINA~ eASE NO. CM0395-11 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER JOCELYN REBECCA JESUS LEON ) 6 GUERRERO, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 8
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed February 6, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on February 25, 2013. Assistant 12 Attorney General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant 13 Public Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having considered the 14 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following 15 Decision and Order. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On March 30, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with driving 18 under the influence of alcohol on or about April 16, 2010. The complaint was filed 19 contemporaneously with a copy of a citation and notice for Defendant to appear on April 6, 20 2011 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. Defendant failed to appear on April 6, 2011 and the Court 21 1 entered a bench warrant on April 11, 2011 which included Defendant's contact information. 22 More than a year later on October 24, 2012, the bench warrant was served upon Defendant and 23 the Court appointed her counsel and released her that same day. Defendant was arraigned on 24 October 31,2012. 25 On January 23, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because she was not 26
27 1 The bench warrant indicated Defendant's address and the citation indicated Defendant's address and contac
28 information. However, the record is devoid of any attempts to contact or serve Defendant with the warrant betwee Aprilll, 2011 and October 24,2012.
Page 1 of 4 .... promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011
2 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 3 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that the complaint can only be 4 dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual pr ~udice, bad faith or s misconduct. 6 DI USSION 7 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint hall be dismissed where a 8 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo,
9 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 tO GCA § 80.60(a)(3)," to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10 a).
II /d. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstance of 12 each case. /d. at, 14.
13 1. Good Cause to D I y Prompt Arraignment 14 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial Is context are instructional for the purpo es of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60. 10. People
16 v. Julian 2012 Guam 26 , 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the fo llowing g d cau : 1)
17 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits th defendant; 3) unfore een circumstance ·and
18 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flore , 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40;
19 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 1 I; Quinata v. uperior Court, 2010 Guam 8 36. 20 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on October 31 , 2012, which is more than 60 days 21 after th complaint was filed on March 30, 201 1. An initial delay was caused by Defendant's 22 failure to appear pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25, and a ubsequent delay of more than a year
23 may have been caused by the failure to contact or serve Defendant with a bench warrant. The
24 affidavit on ftle memorializing the xecution of the warrant reflect the arresting marshal
25 received the bench warrant on October 24, 2012 and executed it upon Defendant the same day. 26 The record is d void of any attempts to locate Defi ndant prior to October 24, 2012. Judicial
27 delay in prompt arraignm nt is attributed to th Government. Julian, 201 2 Guam 26 at~ 22.
28 Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, court judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all
Page 2 of4 share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose criminal charges. ld. (citing 2 Strunk v. US., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the 3 untimely arraignment is not excused by more than a year of judicial delay in the service of a 4 bench warrant that included Defendant's contact information and the complaint shall be 5 dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 6 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 7 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 8 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and Rasauo, 2011 9 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 10 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ,-r 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 11 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 12 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See !d. at ,-r 21 (an l3 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 14 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 15 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length ofthe delay; 16 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 17 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,-r,-r 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 18 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors direct whether to 19 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness ofthe offense; 2) the facts 20 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 21 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 22 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025,2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 23 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 24 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 25 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on October 31, 2012, more than one year after the 26 complaint was filed on March 30, 2011. The length of this delay may give rise to a presumption 27 of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at ,-r 49. The delay was caused, in part, by the failure to 28 serve a bench warrant and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the Government.
Page 3 of 4 J Julian 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Another possible cause for the delay may hav been an inability 2 to locate and s rve Defendant, but th entire r cord is devoid of the information necessary to 3 detennine whether this delay was deliberate negligent or justified and the responsibility forth 4 delay does not weigh in favor of either party. Flores 2009 Guam 22 at 45-46. Most s . importantly, the complaint caused no oppres ive pretrial incarceration, anxiety or cone m 6 before Defendant appeared on October 24, 2012, and th re is no all gation of actual prejudice in 7 this matter. !d. at 49-56. These circumstances weigh against a constitutional violation and 8 against the Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice. 9 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the relatively less IO serious misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of th delay th ab ence of
11 clear Government neglect, and the aforementioned absenc of pr ~udice suffered by Defendant. 12 See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons th complaint shall be 13 dismissed without prejudice. 14 Ill IS Ill 16 Ill 17 CO L 10 18 Based upon the fo going the D ii ndant s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and 19 the complaint is dismjssed without prejudice for the failure to promptly arraign Defendant 20 pursuant to 8 GCA § 60. 10 a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 21
22 SO ORDE D this :!sr day of May, 2013. 23
25 -· 26
27 ; -. . . . . :' ~ ~ ;~ '·': ,_ ::-·.·
Pag 4 of4