People v. Mantanona

Opinion

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0663-12 3 ) ) 4 vs. ) ) 5 ) ORDER ROQUE JOHN VILLAGOMEZ ) 6 MANTANONA, ) 7 ) Defendant. 8

9 This matter comes before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on Defendant's

10 Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Dismiss First Charge in the Indictment:

11 Kidnapping. Roque John Villagomez Mantanona ("Defendant") is represented by Assistant 12 Public Defender Maria G. Fitzpatrick. The People of Guam ("The People") are represented by 13 Assistant Attorney General Brian D. Gallagher. 14 On February 27, 2013, Defendant was indicted on charges of Kidnapping (As a Second 15 Degree Felony), Special Allegation Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission 16 of a Felony, Assault (As a Misdemeanor), and Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor). On July 17 24, 2013, Defendant filed Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Dismiss First 18 Charge in the Indictment: Kidnapping ("Motion to Dismiss"). The People filed Opposition to 19

20 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Opposition") on October 15, 2013. Defendant filed Reply in

21 Support of Motion to Dismiss First Charge in the Indictment: Kidnapping ("Reply") on October

22 17, 2013.

23 Title 8 GCA § 65.15 states that "[a]ny defense, objection or request which is capable of 24 determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion." 8 25 GCA § 65.15 (20 13 ). To explain its minimum requirements the Court looks to the requirements 26

People v. Mantanona Order Criminal Case No. CF0663-12 1 imposed upon other papers and motions. The majority of all other motions brought before the

2 Superior Court are regulated by GRCP 7. GRCP 7 provides that a motion "shall be made in

3 writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order 4 sought. ... " GRCP 7(b)(l). Interpreting this rule, the Guam Supreme Court has held that a 5 party's failure to assert the grounds for its request may warrant denial. See In re Estate of 6 Concepcion, 2003 Guam 12 ~ 27. The Supreme Court of Guam ("Supreme Court"), in Lamb v. 7 Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 (''Lamb 1"), held that "[i]n order to conduct a meaningful review, the 8 parties must articulate their arguments in a way that allows this court to apply recognized rules 9 of law: It is not sufficient for a party 'simply to announce a position or assert an error and then 10 leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and 11

12 elaborate for him his arguments , and then search tor authority either to sustain or reject his

13 position."' Id. at ~ 35 (citation omitted). Upon review of the Supreme Court's decision in

14 Lamb I and the facial requirements of GRCP 7, the Court finds that Supreme Court's

15 interpretation of Lamb I applies equally to criminal motions.

16 In the present case, there are conflicting reports of the duration of the confinement. 17 Defendant argues the confinement lasted seconds while the People argue it lasted less than five 18 minutes. Additionally, Defendant argues that no evidence was presented to the Grand Jury 19 regarding the duration in which Victim was confined. Defendant argues, absent this 20 information, the Grand Jury could not detem1ine whether the isolation was significant enough to 21 charge kidnapping rather than felonious restraint. 22 While the Court recognizes Defendant's contention that there was no evidence presented 23 to the Grand Jury regarding the possible duration or facts surrounding the confinement, the 24

25 Court notes Defendant has not met the minimum moving requirements of a written motion as

26 stated in Lamb I. Notwithstanding the procedural requirements discussed, the Court accepts

People v. Mantanona Order Criminal Case No. CF0663-12 1 Defendant's motion as filed. Therefore, the Court gives the Govermnent until December 5,

2 2013, to file an affidavit or declaration confirmed under oath showing that the Grand Jury

3 received evidence regarding the duration of the confinement and its nature. 4 SO ORDERED this 5

6 H NO~~~rMICHAEL J. BORDA 0 JUDGE~PERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

People v. Mantanona Order Criminal Case No. CF0663-12