People v. Mafnas

Opinion

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF62-11 )

7 )

)

8 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & 9 ) Motion to Strike People's Opposition to ) Def's Mot. to Suppress & Mot. in Limine 10 ) Filed After Court's Decision as Untimely)

FELIP TEDTAOTAO MAFNAS, )

11 )

DOB: 10/25/1967 )

12 Defendant. )

13 ----------------------------)

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Defendant's Motion to 16 Reconsider and Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress and 17

Motion in Limine Filed After Court's Decision as Untimely. Oral arguments were heard on 18

19 May 14, 2012. Assistant Public Defender Maria G. Fitzpatrick represented Felip Tedtaotao

20 Mafnas ("Defendant") and Assistant Attorney General Brian D. Gallagher appeared on behalf of 21 the Government. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, 22 the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.

23

24 BACKGROUND

25 Defendant was indicted on February 15, 2011, charged with the following: (1) First 26 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree Felony) 3 counts (2) Incest (As a 27 Misdemeanor) 4 counts and (3) Child Abuse (As a 3rd Degree Felony) 3 counts. On February 28

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafnas (CF62-11) Page I of 6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress & 23, 2011, Defendant was arraigned where he plead not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Super.

1

2 Ct. of Guam Minute Entry (Feb. 23,2011). Defendant initially waived his right to a speedy trial

3 pursuant to 8 GCA §80.60 and the 6th Amendment. Assertion or Waiver of Speedy Trial & 4 Request for a Jury of Twelve in Felony Cases (Feb. 24,2011).

5 The Court scheduled trial settings on April 27, 2011, June 6, 2011, August 1,2011, and 6 September 12, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Court issued its Scheduling Order and set jury 7

8 selection and trial date for February 27, 2012. Scheduling Order (Nov. 4, 2011). Defendant

9 then filed a Motion to Dismiss counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Second Charge and all counts of the 10 Third Charge of the indictment as beyond the statute of limitations. The Court heard 11 Defendant's motion on February 27, 2012, and requested the Government to prepare an order to 12

13 reflect the correct charges consistent with the statute of limitations. I

14 On February 28, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Likewise,

15 Defendant filed a Motion in Limine re: 6 GCA §§ 401, 402, 403, on March 1, 2012. The 16 Government filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion in 17 Limine on March 7, 2012. Consequently, Defendant filed his Reply in Support of Motion to 18

19 Suppress on March 8, 2012. The Court heard Defendant's motions on March 8, 2012 and

20 issued its Decision and Order on April 9, 2012. On April 16, 2012, the Court scheduled a Pre- 21 Trial Conference and subsequently issued a new Scheduling Order with jury selection and trial 22 date set for August 6, 2012.

23 Defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial on April 25, 2012, and now moves the 24

25 Court to reconsider its April 9th Decision. The Court heard Defendants Motion to Reconsider

26

27

28 1 The Court has yet to receive anything from the Government reflecting the correct charges as per the Court's Orde on February 27, 2012.

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafuas (CF62-11) Page 2 of 6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress & and Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Motion in 1

2 Limine as Untimely on May 14, 2012, and now issues this Decision.

3 DISCUSSION 4 Motion to Reconsider

5 Guam does not have a specific rule or statute governing the timeliness of motions for 6 reconsideration in criminal cases. Under the "law of the case" doctrine, a court is generally 7

8 precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a

9 higher court in the identical case. People v. Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 1 13 (citing Thomas v. Bible, 10 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9 th Cir. 1993)). Unlike the civil arena, motions for "reconsideration" in 11 criminal proceedings are not derived from any statutes or rules, but rather, are judicial creations 12

13 allowed pursuant to common law doctrine. United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 84 S.Ct. 533,

14 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (l964); see also United States v. Corey, 999 F.2d 493,495 (loth Cir. 1993); and

15 th United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142, 1143 (5 Cir. 1995).

16 In addressing whether a court may reconsider a decision in a criminal case, the Supreme 17 Court of Guam held that "[ a] court has discretion to depart from the law of the case where: 1)

18

19 the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the

20 evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) 21 manifest injustice would otherwise result." Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 1 13.

22 The Court finds only the fifth factor above relevant to the case at bar. Defendant argues 23 that the Court overlooked the tape of the proceedings following the testimony of Officer 24

25 Andrew on cross examination. In review of Officer Andrew's testimony on playback, the Court

26 recognizes as it did in its April 9th Decision that Guam Police officers "requested Mr. Mafnas' 27 (Defendant) presence at the Dededo Precinct where he acknowledged and agreed that [officers]

28

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafnas (CF62-11) Page 3 of6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress & were gomg to transport him." Testimony of GPD Officer Jerome 1. Andrew, Transcript 1

2 JDAASCRA (3/8/2012) at 2:30:12. However, Defendant "was not free to leave" contrary to the

3 Court's earlier findings. In fact Officer Andrew testified that "the door was shut and that 4 [Defendant] was not free to leave" the interview room. ld. at 2:41 :04 In view of this, the Court 5 still finds that Defendant was advised of his rights at 9: 14 p.m. and subsequently arrested at 6 10:55 p.m. Therefore, any statements made by Defendant prior to 9:14 p.m. is suppressed.

7

8 Defendant's statements made after 9:14 p.m. are not suppressed since he was advised of his

9 constitutional rights at that time. 10 Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress & Motion 11 in Limine Filed After Court's Decision as Untimely 12

Defendant also moves the Court to strike People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to 13

14 Suppress and Motion in Limine filed after Court's Decision as untimely. The opposition at 15 issue was filed by the Government on April 10, 2012 after the Court issued its Decision and 16 Order on April 9, 2012.

17 With respect to motions filed in criminal cases, Guam law provides the following under 18

19 the Criminal Procedure Code:

20 Papers required to be served shall be filed with the court. Papers shall be filed in the manner provided in civil actions.

21

22 8 GCA § 1.29 (d).

23 In tracking the requirements for civil actions relative to motion practice, Local 24 Rules of the Superior Court of Guam provide that oppositions shall be filed as follows:

25 (1) The opposing party shall, not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the 26 noticed date of oral argument, serve upon all parties and file with the clerk:

(A) a memorandum in support thereof containing the points and authorities upon 27 which the opposing party relies;

28 eB) if desired, the evidence upon which the opposing party relies;

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafnas (CF62-11) Page 4 of6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress &

J

(C) any affidavits or declarations permitted by the Guam Rules of Civil 1 Procedure.

2 Guam Sup. Ct. R. CVR 7.1 (d)(l).

3 The Court also relies on Mano v. Mano, 2005 Guam 2, which instructed on how courts should 4

5 treat a party's failure to file an opposition:

6 "[We] emphasize that the failure to file a written opposition to a motion, the filing of a 7 notice of non-opposition to a motion, or the disregard of untimely filed papers, does not 8 require [the] court to automatically grant the motion and is not dispositive of the motion itself.

9 The court has a duty to analyze the merits of the motion before rendering its decision."

10

11 (Emphasis added). Mano, 2005 Guam 2 ~ 14 (citing Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ~ 28).

12 In the instant case, the Government filed an opposition a day after the Court issued its 13 Decision and Order and well beyond the oral argument date. Accordingly, the Court Grants 14 Defendant's Motion to Strike. Notwithstanding the Court's Order to Strike the People's 15

16 Opposition, the Court notes that the People filed a duplicate opposition on March 7, 2012,

17 before oral arguments relative to Defendant's Motion to Suppress. The Government's 18 opposition filed in March was considered on its merits and will remain in the file since the 19 Court received it before oral arguments were heard.

20 /II 21

22 /II

23 /II 24 /II 25 /II 26

27 1/1

28

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafnas (CF62-11) Page 5 of6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress &

CONCLUSION

1

2 By a preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court

3 GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Reconsider consistent with this Order and GRANTS 4 Defendant's Motion to Strike People's April 10th Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress 5 and Motion in Limine Filed After Court's Decision as Untimely.

6

7 SO ORDERED this ~day of June, 2012. 8

9 A Further Proceedings is set for June 28, 2012, at 9 a.m. 10

11

12

13 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

People of Guam v. Felip T. Mafnas (CF62-11) Page 60f6 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion to Reconsider & Motion to Strike People's Opposition to Defs Mot. to Suppress &