People v. Manila

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

~ Criminal Case No. CF0020-08 PEOPLE OF.GUAM )

10 vs.

DAVID Q. MANILA, l ~) DECISION AND ORDER: Defendan"' Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Bring The Defendant in Front of a Magistrate Within 48 Hrs. 11

12 ANTHONY T. QUENGA, MARIO L. LAXAMANA, lJ Defendan"_ ) --------------------------- 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on November 26,2012, for a 17 hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Bring the Defendant In Front of a HI Magistrate Within 48 Hours. Assistant Attorney Generals Nelson J. Wernet and Lea L. Kear 19 represented the People of Guam ("the People"). Attorney William B. Pole appeared on behalf 20 of David Q. Manila ("Defendant Manila"). Attorney Peter C. Perez appeared on behalf of 21 Mario L. Laxamana ('4Defendant Laxamanaj. Attorney Leevin T. Camaeho appeared on 22 behalf of Anthony T. Quenga ("Defendant Quenga"). Upon review of the oral and written 23 arguments, and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision 24 and Order DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 25 BACKGROUND On November 16.2012, Defendants were indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Orand 27 Jury. Supersling lruiictplent (Nov. 16, 2012). The People filed a Motion to Unseal the

CFO02(H.l8: l:'eOO.Le V. Son. Ja Cha, at "OR1G\NAL t

Superseding Indictment on November 19, 2012. Defendants Manila and Quenga are currently 1 held in the custody of the Guam Detention Facility pending the posting of cash bail in the 2 amount of $250,000.00. Commitment Order (Nov. 19,2012). Defendant Laxamana has been 3 released after posting $100,000 cash bail on November 23,2012. Order of Conditional Release .. 5 & Appearance Bond (Nov. 23, 2012). Defendant Manila filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment For Failure to Bring the 6

7 Defendant In Front of a Magistrate Within 48 Hours on November 19, 2012. Defendant Laxamana also filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 19.2012, based on the 48 hour mIe. s Subsequently, Defendant Laxamana filed a joinder in motions of co-defendants. Defendant 9 Quenga argued on the issue concerning the 48 hour rule. 10 The People filed their opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on November 23, 11 12 2012. On November 26,2012, the Court heard oral arguments on Defendants' motion and now

13 issues this Decision and Order.

14 DISCUSSION 15 Defendants move the Court to dismiss the instant case for failure to bring the Defendants 16 before a Magistrate Judge within forty-eight hours. Defendants specifically cite to 8 GCA § 17 4S.1O(c). Defendants argue that they were not brought before any judge until November 19, 2012, following B1TeSt warrants issued on November 16,2012. 18 The People oppose Defendants Motion to Dismiss and argue that "the Indictment was 19 ordered sealed at [their] request for the protection of the defendants and the arresting Marshals.H 20 21 People's Opposition to Ders Motto Dismiss (Nov. 23, 2012). The People also contend that they "asked the Magistrate Court to hear a return of warrant." Id The "Magistrate hearings 22 . were conducted as scheduled" on November 17, 2012, however, the return of warrant was not 23 24 heard by the Magistrate Judge "because the indictment was sealed." Id Instead, the Magistrate 25 Judge continued the matter as indicated in the Court's recording log for a "next hearing on 26 November 19, 2012 at 11 a.m. See Sgper. Ct. of Guam Recording Log at 3:07:40 (Nov. 17~ 21 2012).

28 2

CF0020-08: People v. Sonq Ja Cha, et al. + • . t

The People argue that "extraordinary circumstances existed in this case, and but for such 1 extraordinary circumstances, defendants would have been brought before a judge well within 48 2 hours.n People's Opposition to Def's Mot. to Dismiss (Nov. 23, 2012). Furthermore, the .3 People contend that Defendants have not shown any prejUdice to warrant dismissal with 4 prejudice. Id. 5 The Court also reviewed the submissions of other local trial court authorities provided 6

7 by Defendant Laxamana. In People v. Laguana. CF138-05, Defendant Laguana was not

brought before a magistrate until sixty-five days after his arrest. In People v. Anastacio, CF150-

06, the issue before the court was whether a 13 day delay in bringing Defendant before a judge 10 warranted dismissal of the indictment. 11 Guam law specifically provides the duty to deliver an arrestee to a Judge as follows:

13 The person arrested shall in all cases be taken before the judge within forty-eight (48) hours after the arrest. except that when the forty-eight (48) hour period 14 expires. it is the burden of the government to demonstrate that a bona fide emergency or an extraordinary circumstance existed. 15

16 8 GCA § 4SJO(c).

17 The statutory language above was enacted into law on May 9,2008, pursuant to P.L 29.. 18 075: 1. The statute has been addressed in an Order issued by the Supreme Court of Guam. 19 "Title 8 GCA § 45.10 (c) is derived, in Part. from California Penal Code §825" People v. 20 Brown, CRA-07-005 (Order at 5 (Oct. 19,2007». Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam 21

22 "has previously held that California's interpretations of its statutes provides guidance to this

23 court's parallel Guam law." Id. at 6. California Penal Code § 825 (a) reflects a forty-eight

hour provision and reads in relevant part: 25 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the defendant shall in all cases be taken 26 before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and. in any event, within 48 27 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays.

:3

CF0020-08: People v. Song Ja Cha, at al. .

~'Califomia COurts have strongly rejected the remedy of dismissal when there has been a delay in 1

:2 a defendant's first appearance before a judge.n It:/. "A mere violation of Section 825, Penal

Code, will not aid [Defendant] without a further showing of prejudice suffered by him as a 4 result of his detention.'~ Id. Brown goes on to cite that "[a] violation of a defendant's right to 5 be taken before a magistrate within the time specified by the law does not require a reversal 6 unless he shows that through such wrongful conduct he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise 7

suffered prejudice as a result thereof." Id. There is no issue relative to deprivation of a fair trial

or prejudice in the instant case. 10 The People have demonstrated that an extraordinary circumstance existed and the Court 11 frods that they have met that burden. The People attempted to magistrate defendants on 12 November 17,2012. however, the matter was continued to November 19, 2012, at U a.m.,

because of the ease being sealed. The mere fact of a delay between arrest and the first 15 appearance does not automatically result in dismissal. Order at 5 (Nov. 19. 2007). 16 CONCLUSION 11 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 1S

19 DENIES Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

20 SO ORDERED this;" day of ~. ,2012. 21

26 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27

28 4

CF00:20-0S: People v. Song Ja Cha, at al.