F e L go if# I cuzas Q mum 2 Zii°Z51¥20'! *B la?-H1239 3 ,_,, "~.. -. e v S~U§~'I;¥l§§bR€3€;L'§is 4 ¢2zi$:?~¢x 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. NO.CF0390-23 CF0390-23 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 JOHN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J. 12 12 aka Kadi, 13 Defendant. 14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. Perez on October 30, 2024, for hearing
17 17 on Defendant JOI-IN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J. aka Kadi's ("Defendant") JOHN JOSEPH ("Defendant") Motion to
18 18 Sever Sever Charges. Charges. Present Presentwere wereAssistant AssistantAttorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralKathleen KathleenO'Nei1 O'Neilon on behalf behalfof of the People
19 19 of Guam and Defendant Defendant with with counsel, counsel, R. R. Marsil Marsil Johnson. Johnson. Having Having reviewed reviewed the the pleadings, the
20 20 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision Decision and and Order.
21 BACKGROUND
22 22 Defendant is is charged charged with with (1) (1) Burglary Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony); Felony); (2) Burglary to a
23 Motor Vehicle (As a Second Second Degree Felony); (3) Criminal Criminal Mischief Mischief (As (As aa Third Third Degree Felony);
24 24 and (4) Theft Theft (As (As aa Petty PettyMisdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jun. 9, 2023). 2023). The The First Charge of Burglary Burglary
25 25 (As aa Second Second Degree Degree Felony) Felony) stems stems from from allegations allegations occurring occurring on on or or about about December 8, 2020
26 26 against Islae V e Clinic. Vet C l i n i c . Id The Second Charge of of Burglary to a Motor Vehicle (As a Second
27 27 Degree Felony), Third Charge of Criminal Mischief Mischief (As (As aa Third Third Degree Degree Felony), Felony), and and Fourth Fourth
28 28
People v. v. Manibusan Case No. No. CF0390-23 CF0390-23 Decision Decision and Order
Page 11 of ofS5 1 Charge Charge of Theft Theft (As (Asa aPetty PettyMisdemeanor), Misdemeanor),stem stemfrom fromallegations allegations occurring occumng on on or or about about· 2 November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 againstShirley Antolin. Id Shirley Antolin. 3 On October 2, 2024, Defendant filed 2024, Defendant filed the instant instantMotion, Motion, moving the Court to sever the
4 First Charge from from the the Second, Second, Third, Third, and and Fourth Charges. Defendant moves Charges. Defendant moves the the Court Court to to sever
5 the December 8, 2020 charge charge from the November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 charges charges because because they are are improperly 6 joined and joined he will and he will be be prejudiced prejudiced by theirjoinder trial.11 See their joinderatattriaL generally, Mot. See generally, Oct. 2, Sever, Oct. Mot. Sever, 2, 2024. 2024. 7 On October October 14, 14, 2024, the Government filed 2024, the filed its its Opposition, Opposition, arguing arguing that that the charges are are properly
8 8 joined and that that even even if if they were severed, severed, evidence evidence of ofthe the charges charges would would be be admissible admissible in in each each 9 trial under underGRE GRE 404(b). 404(b). See generally, Opp'n, Opp'n, Oct. Oct. 14, 14, 2024. 2024. On On October October 16, 16, 2024, 2024, Defendant 10 10 filed filed his Reply. Reply.
11 11 On October October 30, 30, 2024, 2024, the Court heard arguments on the arguments on the Motion Motion and and subsequently subsequently placed 12 the matter under under advisement. advisement.
13 13 DISCUSSION 14 14 Under Guam Guam law, law, two or more offenses may may be charged charged in the same indictment"if same indictment "if the
15 15 ·offenses charged 'offenses charged are ofthe are of same or thesame orsimilar similarcharacter character or orbased based on on the the same same act act or or transaction transaction or 16 16 on two or or more more acts acts or or transactions connected together or or constituting parts of a common scheme 17 17 or plan." 88 G.C.A. or plan." G.C.A. §§55.352 55.35. 2 Severance Severancemay maybe be appropriate, however: appropriate, however: 18 18 If If itit appears appears that that a defendant or the defendant or the government governmentisis prejudiced prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of offenses or of ofdefendants defendants in an indictment indictment or or information informationor orby by such suchjoinder jointer for 19 19 trial together, the court may order an election election or or separate separate trials of ofcounts, counts, grant grant a 20 20 severance severance of of defendants orprovide defendants or provide whatever whateverother otherrelief reliefjustice requires. 21
11 The TheCoM Courtnotes notesthat thatwhile whilethe theMotion Motioninitially initiallymoves movesthethe Court Courttoto "sever "severthe the counts counts and and charges charges and and order order separate 22 trials for trials for each each separate separate charge charge and and count count of of the the Indictment," Indictment," see see Mot. Mot. Sever at at 5, 5, Defendant's Defendant's Reply "requests the 23 Court Court to sever sever the counts arising from the November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 incident incident (Counts (Counts 2, 2, 3, and 4) from the sole count arising from the Decemper December 8, 2020 2020 incident incident (Count (Count 1)." l)." (Reply (Reply at 5). 24 2 2 Section Section 55.35 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Federal Rules Rules of of Criminal Criminal Procedure, Procedure, which which provides: provides: 25 (a) (a) Joiner Joinder of ofOffenses. The indictment Offenses. The indictment or or information information may may charge charge aa defendant defendant in in separate separate counts counts with 2 or more offenses if the the offenses offenses charged charged -- whether felonies f~lonies or misdemeanors misdemeanors or or both both -- are 26 of the same or of similar or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts parts of of aa common common scheme or plan. ' 27 Fed. R. Crim. P. P. 8. 8. Accordingly, Accordingly,federal federal law law interpreting interpreting Rule Rule 88 (and (and Rule 14) 14) below is persuasive. See Sum Sumitomo 28 Constr. Co. v. v. Zhang Ye, Inc., Inc., 1997 Guam ,r Guam 88 117.
People v. v. Manibusan Manibusan Case No. No. CF0390-23 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of5 of 1 8 G.c.A. §§ 65.352 8 G.C.A. 65.35. 3 2 To determine whether offenses are properly joined, courts traditionally traditionally consider "whether "whether
3 the charges the charges are are laid under under the the same samestatute, statute,whether whetherthey theyinvolve involve similar similar victims, victims, locations, locations, or
4 modes of of operation, operation, and and the time frame in in which which the the charged charged conduct occurred." occurred." United United States States 5 v. v. Taylor, Taylor, 54 F.3d F.3d 967, 967,973 973(1st (let Cir. Cir. 1995) l995) (citations omitted). "[T]he (citations omitted). "[T]heprimary primary purpose purpose of Rule 6 8(a) jointer is 8(a) joinder to ensure is to ensure that that aa given given transaction transactionneed needonly onlybebeproved provedonce once.... .... Where Where there there is 7 substantial overlapininevidence substantial overlap evidencebetween betweentwo two offenses, offenses,joinder jointer eliminates the need eliminates the need to to prove
8 substantially thesame substantially the sameevidence evidencetwice twice over, over, thus thus realizing realizing precisely precisely the the kind land of economy economy 9 envisaged by by Rule Rule 8(a)." 8(a)." Howerton Howerton v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F e L go if# I cuzas Q mum 2 Zii°Z51¥20'! *B la?-H1239 3 ,_,, "~.. -. e v S~U§~'I;¥l§§bR€3€;L'§is 4 ¢2zi$:?~¢x 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. NO.CF0390-23 CF0390-23 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 JOHN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J. 12 12 aka Kadi, 13 Defendant. 14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. Perez on October 30, 2024, for hearing
17 17 on Defendant JOI-IN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J. aka Kadi's ("Defendant") JOHN JOSEPH ("Defendant") Motion to
18 18 Sever Sever Charges. Charges. Present Presentwere wereAssistant AssistantAttorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralKathleen KathleenO'Nei1 O'Neilon on behalf behalfof of the People
19 19 of Guam and Defendant Defendant with with counsel, counsel, R. R. Marsil Marsil Johnson. Johnson. Having Having reviewed reviewed the the pleadings, the
20 20 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision Decision and and Order.
21 BACKGROUND
22 22 Defendant is is charged charged with with (1) (1) Burglary Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony); Felony); (2) Burglary to a
23 Motor Vehicle (As a Second Second Degree Felony); (3) Criminal Criminal Mischief Mischief (As (As aa Third Third Degree Felony);
24 24 and (4) Theft Theft (As (As aa Petty PettyMisdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jun. 9, 2023). 2023). The The First Charge of Burglary Burglary
25 25 (As aa Second Second Degree Degree Felony) Felony) stems stems from from allegations allegations occurring occurring on on or or about about December 8, 2020
26 26 against Islae V e Clinic. Vet C l i n i c . Id The Second Charge of of Burglary to a Motor Vehicle (As a Second
27 27 Degree Felony), Third Charge of Criminal Mischief Mischief (As (As aa Third Third Degree Degree Felony), Felony), and and Fourth Fourth
28 28
People v. v. Manibusan Case No. No. CF0390-23 CF0390-23 Decision Decision and Order
Page 11 of ofS5 1 Charge Charge of Theft Theft (As (Asa aPetty PettyMisdemeanor), Misdemeanor),stem stemfrom fromallegations allegations occurring occumng on on or or about about· 2 November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 againstShirley Antolin. Id Shirley Antolin. 3 On October 2, 2024, Defendant filed 2024, Defendant filed the instant instantMotion, Motion, moving the Court to sever the
4 First Charge from from the the Second, Second, Third, Third, and and Fourth Charges. Defendant moves Charges. Defendant moves the the Court Court to to sever
5 the December 8, 2020 charge charge from the November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 charges charges because because they are are improperly 6 joined and joined he will and he will be be prejudiced prejudiced by theirjoinder trial.11 See their joinderatattriaL generally, Mot. See generally, Oct. 2, Sever, Oct. Mot. Sever, 2, 2024. 2024. 7 On October October 14, 14, 2024, the Government filed 2024, the filed its its Opposition, Opposition, arguing arguing that that the charges are are properly
8 8 joined and that that even even if if they were severed, severed, evidence evidence of ofthe the charges charges would would be be admissible admissible in in each each 9 trial under underGRE GRE 404(b). 404(b). See generally, Opp'n, Opp'n, Oct. Oct. 14, 14, 2024. 2024. On On October October 16, 16, 2024, 2024, Defendant 10 10 filed filed his Reply. Reply.
11 11 On October October 30, 30, 2024, 2024, the Court heard arguments on the arguments on the Motion Motion and and subsequently subsequently placed 12 the matter under under advisement. advisement.
13 13 DISCUSSION 14 14 Under Guam Guam law, law, two or more offenses may may be charged charged in the same indictment"if same indictment "if the
15 15 ·offenses charged 'offenses charged are ofthe are of same or thesame orsimilar similarcharacter character or orbased based on on the the same same act act or or transaction transaction or 16 16 on two or or more more acts acts or or transactions connected together or or constituting parts of a common scheme 17 17 or plan." 88 G.C.A. or plan." G.C.A. §§55.352 55.35. 2 Severance Severancemay maybe be appropriate, however: appropriate, however: 18 18 If If itit appears appears that that a defendant or the defendant or the government governmentisis prejudiced prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of offenses or of ofdefendants defendants in an indictment indictment or or information informationor orby by such suchjoinder jointer for 19 19 trial together, the court may order an election election or or separate separate trials of ofcounts, counts, grant grant a 20 20 severance severance of of defendants orprovide defendants or provide whatever whateverother otherrelief reliefjustice requires. 21
11 The TheCoM Courtnotes notesthat thatwhile whilethe theMotion Motioninitially initiallymoves movesthethe Court Courttoto "sever "severthe the counts counts and and charges charges and and order order separate 22 trials for trials for each each separate separate charge charge and and count count of of the the Indictment," Indictment," see see Mot. Mot. Sever at at 5, 5, Defendant's Defendant's Reply "requests the 23 Court Court to sever sever the counts arising from the November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 incident incident (Counts (Counts 2, 2, 3, and 4) from the sole count arising from the Decemper December 8, 2020 2020 incident incident (Count (Count 1)." l)." (Reply (Reply at 5). 24 2 2 Section Section 55.35 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Federal Rules Rules of of Criminal Criminal Procedure, Procedure, which which provides: provides: 25 (a) (a) Joiner Joinder of ofOffenses. The indictment Offenses. The indictment or or information information may may charge charge aa defendant defendant in in separate separate counts counts with 2 or more offenses if the the offenses offenses charged charged -- whether felonies f~lonies or misdemeanors misdemeanors or or both both -- are 26 of the same or of similar or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts parts of of aa common common scheme or plan. ' 27 Fed. R. Crim. P. P. 8. 8. Accordingly, Accordingly,federal federal law law interpreting interpreting Rule Rule 88 (and (and Rule 14) 14) below is persuasive. See Sum Sumitomo 28 Constr. Co. v. v. Zhang Ye, Inc., Inc., 1997 Guam ,r Guam 88 117.
People v. v. Manibusan Manibusan Case No. No. CF0390-23 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of5 of 1 8 G.c.A. §§ 65.352 8 G.C.A. 65.35. 3 2 To determine whether offenses are properly joined, courts traditionally traditionally consider "whether "whether
3 the charges the charges are are laid under under the the same samestatute, statute,whether whetherthey theyinvolve involve similar similar victims, victims, locations, locations, or
4 modes of of operation, operation, and and the time frame in in which which the the charged charged conduct occurred." occurred." United United States States 5 v. v. Taylor, Taylor, 54 F.3d F.3d 967, 967,973 973(1st (let Cir. Cir. 1995) l995) (citations omitted). "[T]he (citations omitted). "[T]heprimary primary purpose purpose of Rule 6 8(a) jointer is 8(a) joinder to ensure is to ensure that that aa given given transaction transactionneed needonly onlybebeproved provedonce once.... .... Where Where there there is 7 substantial overlapininevidence substantial overlap evidencebetween betweentwo two offenses, offenses,joinder jointer eliminates the need eliminates the need to to prove
8 substantially thesame substantially the sameevidence evidencetwice twice over, over, thus thus realizing realizing precisely precisely the the kind land of economy economy 9 envisaged by by Rule Rule 8(a)." 8(a)." Howerton Howerton v. Unitea'States, United 964 A.2d A.2d 1282, 1292(D.C. 1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009) 2009) (citations, (citations,
10 10 internal quotation marks, marks, and andalterations alterationsomitted). omitted). See See also United United States v. Terry, 911 911 F.2d 272, 11 11 276 276 (9th Cir. Cir. 1990) 1990) ("When ("When ... .. joined joinedoffenses offensesare arenot notconnected connected and and are are not provable by the 12 same evidence, jointer is improper."). same evidence,joinder improper."). Rule Rule 8(a) is is "construed broadly broadlyin infavor favorofinitialjoinder." of initial jointer."
13 13 United United States States v. Walker, Walser, 33 F.3d 380, 380, 385 385(11th (nth Cir. Cir. 1993) 1993) (citation (citation omitted). See also United See also 14 14 States v.v. Boulanger, Boulanger, 444 F.3d 76, 76, 87 87 (1st (let Cir. 2006) 2006) (construing Rule 8(a) generously in 8(a) generously in favor favor of of
15 15 jointer). joinder). 16 In this this case, case, the the Government Government argues argues that that the charges charges are are properly joined joined because because the 17 17 "statutes relating relating to the the different incidents are are both both theft theft related relatedburglaries"; burglaries", "Defendant targeted
18 18 medical businesses medical for both businesses for both burglaries" burglaries" because because"one "one incident incident occurred occurred at at aa vet vet clinic and and the 19 19 other burglary burglary occurred occurredto to aavehicle vehicle in the the parking parkinglot lot of of Renal Care", Care"; and and the "crimes occurred 20 20 about aa month about apart." (Opp'n monthapart." (Opp'n at at 1-2). 1-2). Thus, Thus,the theGovernment Governmentappears appears to to be be arguing arguing that that the the 21
22 33 Section Section65.35 65 .3 5isissubstantially substantially similar similar to to Rule 14 14 of of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
23 jointer of If the joinder ofoffenses offenses or or defendants defendants in in an an indictment, indictment, an information, or or a consolidation consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order order separate separate trials of counts, 24 sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other other relief relief that justice requires. 25 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). 14(a). Thus, Thus, even even if if offenses offenses are are properly joined, a court may grant grant severance severance ofof the offenses offenses if if the defendant defendant is prejudiced byby suchjoinder. jointer. "The "Theprime primeconsideration considerationin in determining determining whether whether or or not not to grant a severance 26 is the possibility possibility of of prejudice prejudice toto the the defendant defendant in in conducting conducting his his defense. defense. Weighing the danger of confusion and Undue undue cumulative inference inference is a matter for the trial trial judge judge within within his his sound sound discretion." discretion." Johnson v. United States, 356 356 27 F.2d 680, 682 (Sth (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 857 (1966). cert. denied, (1966). "It "It is is not enough simply to show that suchjoinder such jointer 28 more difficult makes it more difficulttotodefend." defend." Id.Id (citations (citations omitted).
People People v. Man ibusan Manibusan Case No. CF0390-23 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 ofS 5 charges are properly charges are properlyjoined joined because becausethey theyare areof ofthe the"same "sameor or similar similarcharacter." 4 Accordingly, character."4 1 Accordingly, 2 "factors such the Court considers "factors asthe such as theelements elementsof of the thestatutory statutoryoffenses, offenses, the thetemporal temporalproximity proximity
3 of ofthe the acts, the the likelihood likelihood and extent of evidentiary overlap, the physical location location of ofthe the acts, acts, the 4 modus operandiof modus operandi of the thecrimes, crimes,and andthe theidentity identityof ofthe thevictims." victims." United United States States v. Jawara, Jawara, 474 F.3d 5 565, 578 (9th 565, 578 (9thCir. Cir. 2007). 2007). "The "The weight weightgiven giventotoaaparticular particular factor factor will will depend depend on on the specific 6 context of the case case and andthe theallegations allegationsininthe theindictment." indictment." Id Id
7 In In applying this this inquiry, the the Court finds that the the First First Charge Charge is is not notof of the the "same "same or similar
8 character character"_as as the the Second, Second, Third, Third, and and Fourth Charges Charges in in the theIndictment. Indictment. The Court acknowledges
9 that the the incidents incidentsalleged alleged occurred occurredroughly roughly one onemonth monthfrom fromeach eachother. other. This This fact, fact, however, does
10 10 not mean mean it is likely that that any any evidence of ofthe the November November4, 4, 2020 2020 incident incident overlapped overlapped with the 111 1 December 8, 2020 incident. 55 The Court December Court also also acknowledges acknowledges that that both both the the December December 8, 8, 2020 2020 and and 12 12 November 4, 2020 incident incident involve involve the the charge charge of of Burglary. Burglary. However, However, the the December December 8, 8, 2020 2020 13 13 charge charge of Burglary Burglary involves involves allegations allegations that that Defendant Defendant entered a clinic, whereas the November whereas the November
14 4, 2020 charge of 2020 charge of Burglary involves involves allegations allegations that that Defendant entered entered an anindividual's individual's vehicle, vehicle,
15 15 to which which he also damaged. damaged. While Whileboth boththe theDecember December8,8,2020 2020 and and November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 incidents incidents 16 16 occurred on Guam, Guam, the theNovember November 4, 4, 2020 2020incident incidenttook tookplace placeon onNCS NCS Road in Dededo between
17 17 12:00 p.m. p.m. and 6:00 6:00 p.m: p.m1while whilethe theDecember December 8, 8, 2020 2020 incident incident took place in in Asan Asan around around 12:30 12:30 18 18 a.m. See a.m. See Reply at 3. Replyat Further,the 3. Further, the December December8, 8, 2020 2020 incident incident is is alleged alleged to to have have been been carried carried out out 19 19 by Defendant Defendant and co-actor, whereas and a co-actor, whereas the the November November 4, 4, 2020 2020 incident incident is is alleged to have been
20 20
22 4 "Rule 8(a) "Rule 8(a) provides provides for for jointer joinderofofoffenses offensesagainst againstaa single defendant in single defendant in the indictment if the indictment if one of three one of conditions three conditions 23 Theoffenses is satisfied. The offensescharged chargedmust must be: be: (1) (1) "of "ofthe the same or similar same or similar character," character;" (2) (2) "based "based on on the the same same act act or or 24 transaction;" or transaction," or (3) (3) "connected "connected with with or or constituting constituting parts partsof ofaacommon commonscheme schemeororplan." plan." United United States States v.v. Jawara, Jawara, F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 474 F.3d (citing Fed. Fed. R. R. Crum. Crim. P. P. 8(a)). TheGovernment 8(a)). The Governmenthas hasnot notset set forth forth that that the the charges charges 25 are "based on the the same same act act or or transaction" transaction" or or part part of "common scheme of aa "common scheme or or plan" plan" as as the the commission commission of of one one of of the the did not depend on or lead to offenses did to the the commission commission of the the other. other. See See id. id at at 574 574 (citation omitted). omitted). 26 26 5 The 5 The Court Court declines to to address addressthe theissue issueofGRE 404(b) evidence at ofGRE 404(b) at this thistime. time.See SeeOpp'n Opp'natat33("[T]he ("[T]he People People believe believe 27 that the that the evidence evidence mentioned above would would be be admissible under either admissible under either the intent, knowledge, the intent, knowledge, or or absence absence of of mistake mistake purposes allowable under GRE Rule under GRE Rule 404(b)."). 404(b).").Parties Partiesmay mayfurther furtherbrief theissue briefthe issue should should any any of of the charges proceed the charges proceed 28 to trial. trial.
People People v. Manibusan v. Manibusan Case No. No. CF0390-23 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 4 of5 carried out by Defendant alone. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that the First Charge is improperly 2 joined with the Second, Third, and Fourth Charges and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever 3 Charges. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever 6 Charges. The First Charge of Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony) will be severed from the 7 remaining charges for trial. Parties shall return for a Status Hearing on November 7, 2024 at 9:00 8 a.m. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED this {Q"\¼ day of November, 2024. 10
13 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14
21 SERVICE VIA EMAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 22 cop~ j)f the originaLwas e,.maiJed-tO:
23 a. MA.fi l ~._,~fol', M.i; 24
_25
27 6 The Fifth Charge of the Indictment charges Co-Defendant Peter David Tedtaotao Ogo with Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony) against Isla Vet Clinic on or about December 8, 2020. (Indictment, Jun. 9, 2023). Co-Defendant 28 Ogo is not charged with any other crimes in the Indictment. See id.
People v. Manibusan Case No. CF0390-23 Decision and Order
Page 5 of5