People v. Mariano

Opinion

- , -- -,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM c<: --,'--~ r :V, 11 I'L

CRIMINAL CASJt N-6: C~MO~'~3~il ~t \) i 2 ) THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 3 ) -_\,~

vs. ) 4 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 5 ) DISMISS IAN ANTHONY LUJAN MARIANO, 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) ) 8 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on December 20,2011 10 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Randall F. Cunliffe represented Defendant, wh 11 was present. Attorney James C. Collins appeared on behalf of the Government. Havin 12 reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented and the record, the Court now issues th

13 following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief and Assault as Misdemeanors. Defendan 16 requests dismissal as he argues that the time from the filing of the criminal Complaint agains 17 him to the time he was arraigned was in violation of the Prompt Arraignment Rule recentl 18 handed down by the Supreme Court of Guam in People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 (hereinafte

19 "Rasauo 11'). 20 DISCUSSION 21 Defendant argues that this case be dismissed for violation of the rule put forth in Rasau 22 II. See also 8 GCA §60.10. The recent Supreme Court decision Rasauo II requires dismissa 23 where a defendant is not arraigned within 60 days of the date of filing of a formal crimina 24 complaint Yet, as the Government argues, delay in arraignment may be excused where "goo 25 cause" is shown. Id. at ~14. In Rasauo IL the Guam Supreme Court found that delay create 26 from the Government choosing to continue with a separate charge before proceeding on a secon 27 crime was not good cause delay. Here, the Government alleges that their office was no 28 negligent in dealing with the Defendant and did the most that it could do to expedite proceeding

People v. Mariano, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CM0873-11 - Page 1 of 4 - against Defendant. The Government believes that good cause delay exists where the courts ar 2 at fault for setting first appearance hearings beyond 60 days from a formal complaint. I 3 furtherance of that contention, the Government puts forth that the Rasauo II decision is focuse 4 on prosecutorial delay and does not apply the same strict standards for all Government agencie 5 affiliated with criminal proceedings that exist for the Speedy Trial Right. 8 GCA § 80.60. On th 6 other hand, Defendant argues that even the Court and its officers are subject to the Promp 7 Arraignment Right defined in Rasauo II. That is the crux of the issue before the Court now 8 Does good cause delay exist where the Court system does not get a defendant to arraignmen 9 until 60 days after the complaint was filed? 10 In People v. Stephen, the Court stated that prompt arraignment is "a statutory expressio 11 of the speedy trial right". 2009 Guam 8 ~32. In dismissal motions arising from a violation ofth 12 Speedy Trial Right, the courts may also be responsible for the violation. In Speedy Trial Righ 13 violations, the remedy is the same as if the Government created the delay, which is at minim 14 dismissal when no good cause is found. If the Supreme Court intended to align promp 15 arraignment with the Speedy Trial Right, the standards applying to the Speedy Trial Right als 16 apply. 17 The Government argues that the intent behind Rasauo II was not to ensure that the court 18 promptly place all hearings for a Defendant's arraignment within 60 days. The Governmen 19 contends that the Guam Supreme Court meant only to deter prosecutorial delay or negligence' 20 prosecuting cases. In addition, the Government claims that it would be unreasonable to ask tha 21 the calendar for many courts be subject to a 60 day window for arraignments of crimina 22 defendants. This Court interprets the Rasauo II decision such that the lower courts are require 23 to adjust their calendaring procedures in accordance with the Prompt Arraignment Rule put fort 24 in Rasauo II. 25 The Court finds no relevant controlling precedent in case law to base its decision, bu 26 finds it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court did imply that the courts are also responsible fo 27 ensuring prompt arraignment. That intent is clear considering the Guam Supreme Co 28 declaring that "this principle is directly embodied in our statutory framework" and quoting

People v. Mariano, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CM0873-11 - Page 2 of 4 - GCA §80.50(a) directly after that statement, which provides:

2 the welfare of the people of the territory of Guam requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and 3 determined at the earliest possible time, and it shall be the duty of all 4 courts and judicial officers and of all prosecuting attorneys to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends 5 of justice. (2010). 6 Therefore, the Supreme Court made it clear that it intended the Superior Court and its officers t 7 be subject to the Prompt Arraignment Rule put forth in Rasauo II Here, there were more than 6 8 days from Complaint to arraignment and the Court created delay can require dismissal if there i 9 no good cause shown as determined above. The issue now becomes whether there was goo 10 cause for delay that the Court and its officers created in arraigning the Defendant? 11 The procedure in this case is very simple and straightforward. The complaint was file 12 August 18, 2011. Defendant received a summons to appear to Court on October 7, 2011. 13 Defendant's first appearance hearing was set for November 16, 2011. The Court schedule 14 Defendant's arraignment 90 days after the complaint was filed, which is far in excess of the 6 15 day limit. Defendant did nothing to create delay or cause the Court to schedule the hearing 9 16 days after the complaint. There can be no good cause found in this instance. The Court i 17 responsible for getting all criminal defendants to arraignment within 60 days as that is 18 reasonable time according to the Guam Supreme Court, as explained above. This Court mus 19 dismiss the case as it is the remedy associated with a violation of Defendant's Promp 20 Arraignment Right. This case, however, will not be dismissed with prejudice as it appears th 21 Office of the Attorney General was not responsible for the Court error and the Court clerks wer 22 not yet aware of the significance of the Rasauo II decision. 23

24 / / 25

26 27 / / 28

People v. Mariano, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CM0873-11 - Page 3 of 4 - 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss withou

4 prejudice. 5 So ORDERED this 2f~ day of February, 2012.

6 7 8 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 9 10 / / 11

12 13 / / 14 15 16 / / 17 18 19 / / 20 21 22 / / 23 24 25 / / 26 27 28

People v. Mariano, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CM0873-11 - Page 4 of 4 -