People v. Macatangay

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case No. CM1237-1 t 4 )

)

5 v. )

DECISION AND ORDER

) re: Motion to Dismiss 6 DENNIS SIANQUITA MACATANGAY, )

7 )

Defendant. )

8

9

10 INTRODUCTION

11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on March 23, 2012. 12 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins. The Defendant I3 was represented by Shane F. T. Black. After considering the matter presented, the Court issues 14 the following decision and order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss because the 15

16 People have not shown good cause for delay in the arraignment of the Defendant.

17 BACKGROUND 18 On December 13,2011, a complaint was filed which charged the Defendant with Illegal 19 Fishing within a Marine Preserve (as a Misdemeanor). On AprilS, 2012, Defendant filed a 20 motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice arguing he was not promptly arraigned.

21

22 DISCUSSION

23 Under Guam law, a "defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the indictment or 24 information is filed or after the complaint is filed where prosecution by complaint is required 25 by § 1.15." 8 GCA § 60.1O(a). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam held, "unless good 26

27 cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned

28 within sixty (60) days of the filing of the complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ,-r 14

("Rasauo II"). The Court also held this "standard continues to require a case by case analysis 2 of whether or not the 'specific circumstance' of any given case shows good cause for delay."

3 /d.

4 The Defendant argues the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because he was 5

6 arraigned more than thirty-two days over the 60-day rule permitted by Rasauo 11 and there is no

7 showing of "good cause" for the delay. However, the People argue the following: (l) judicial 8 process accounted for the delay which should constitute "good cause"; and (2) the defendant 9 needed time to consult with his attorney.

10

11 Here, the complaint was filed December 13, 2011 and a Summons was issued January

12 18, 2012 for an arraignment scheduled for February 22, 2012. A continuance was issued until 13 March 14, 2012, which is when the Defendant was arraigned. The People allege the hearing 14 was continued because the Defendant needed the opportunity to consult with his attorney. The 15 Court notes however, by February 22, 2012 it was already nine (9) days past the 60-day limit.

16

17 The 60-day speedy arraignment deadline set by the Supreme Court of Guam was violated

18 because the Defendant was not promptly arraigned within the 60-day limit. Furthermore, 19 similar to an alleged violation of speedy trial rights, the burden rests with the People to prove 20 that there is good cause to extend the period of arraignment beyond the 60-day rule. State v.

21 Feldhacker, 663 N.W.2d 143, 146 (Neb. App. 2003). The arraignment issue is analogous to the 22

23 speedy trial issue, in the instant case, because there must be "good cause" to go beyond the 60-

24 day rule. 25 The People maintain that once a request for a summons is presented the People retain no 26 control over the court's decision about when to calendar the date on which a defendant is to 27

28 return to court. Thus, the People advocate that any delay attributed to the court's calendaring of an arraignment should be found to be good cause and not cause the case to be dismissed 2 pursuant to Rasauo II. Guam's Supreme Court however makes it clear that it intended the court 3 and its officers to be subject to the prompt arraignment rule put forth in Rasauo II. Rasauo, 2011 4

5 Guam 14 ~ 12; see also 8 GCA § 80.50(a) (It shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers

6 to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice). 7 Since the onus is on all judicial officers, in addition to the prosecuting attorneys, to ensure that a 8 defendant is promptly arraigned, the Court holds that the delay created by the Court scheduling 9 the arraignment date after more than sixty (60) days had passed from the filing of the Complaint 10

11 is not good cause. The Defendant was not promptly arraigned; therefore, this case must be

12 dismissed. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 13 The Court finds that dismissal should be with prejudice. The Supreme Court of Guam 14 applied the statutory speedy trial time period in Rasauo II. This is significant because when a 15 Defendant's right to a speedy trial is violated the action against that Defendant is dismissed 16

17 with prejudice. It is not unreasonable to apply the same rule in the instant case.

18 Furthermore, similar to Rasauo II where the Defendant, "sought pre-trial relief when he 19 filed a motion to dismiss before the trial court ... [the Defendant is] not required to show 20 prejUdice from the delay." 2011 Guam 14 ~ 15. Thus, the Defendant is not required to show that 21 he was prejudiced from the delay in the instant case because the case is in pre-trial stage. The 22

23 Court reiterates that it is the duty of all courts and judicial officers (including the Prosecution)

24 to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree. See 8 GCA § 80.50(a). Therefore, the Court 25 finds that because (1) speedy trial violations result in dismissal with prejudice; (2) the 26 Defendant does not have to show prejudice from the delay; and (3) it was the duty of all court 27

28 and judicial officers to promptly arraign the Defendant, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the People have not shown good cause for 3 the delay of the Defendant's arraignment. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's motion to 4 dismiss with prejudice.

5

6

7 SO ORDERED, this ?1 day ~~ of 2012.

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26