mm
SUPERIOR COURT
1 OF GUAH
2 20211350-9 RH 9: 01 3 CLERK OF COURT 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM By! a 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )
) CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0281-21 7 Plaintiff, )
)
8 vs.
)
9 BRYAN K. MATHEUS, )
aka Bryan Mattheus, aka Brien Matthus, ) DECISION & ORDER:
10 aka Breien Soram, aka Brian Soram, ) Defendant's Motion to Reduce Family aka Brelen Soram, aka Brien Mattheus, ) Violence Charge to a Misdemeanor DOB: 06/23/1993 or 01/25/1996 ) or 06/23/1996 or 02/23/1997 )
12 )
Defendant. )
13 1. In tro d u ctio n 14 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon for a hearing on Defendant's Motion 15
to Reduce Family Violence Charge to a Misdemeanor on September 10, 2021. Attorney 16
17 William Pole represented Defendant Bryan Mattheus ("Defendant"), and Assistant Attorney
is General Renaida San Nicolas represented the People of Guam (the "People"). After reviewing 19 the Parties' written briefs and the record on file with the court, the arguments presented at the 20 Motion Hearing, and the applicable statutes and case law, the court now issues this Decision 21
and Order ruling on the Motion and DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION To REDUCE, for the 22
23 reasons specific to the Motion and as memorialized herein.
24 11. Pro ced u ral Backg ro u n d 25 P u rs u a n t t o a n I n d i c t m e n t b y G ra n d J u ry , t h e D e f e n d a n t w a s c h a rg e d w i t h F a m i l y 26 Violence (As a Third Degree Felony) and Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) on June 14, Z7 28 2021.
People v. Mattheus, CF0281-21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page I of 10
1 Defendant filed his Motion to Reduce Family Violence Charge to a Misdemeanor 2 ("Motion") on July 14, 2021. Along with the Motion, Defendant filed a Declaration from the 3 alleged victim Jenefif Epoch ("Victim") in support of the Motion. In her Declaration, the Victim 4
indicated her desire for the charges to be dropped and for the Defendant to return home. The 5
6 People filed a Response to the Defendant's Motion on July 19, 2021, opposing the reduction of
7 the third degree family violence charge to a misdemeanor arguing that Defendant's prior 8 criminal history supports the charge as a third degree felony. The Defendant tiled a Reply to the 9 People's Response on July 22, 2021. Airer the Defendant filed his initial Reply, the Court held 10
11 a hearing on the Motion. The first hearing on the Motion was continued because the Defendant
12 indicated that he did not have any evidence as to the Defendant's prior criminal convictions 13 which were referred to by the People in opposition to the Motion. The Defendant filed an 14 amended Reply on August 3, 2021 after receiving the evidence of the prior convictions referred 15 16 to by the People and the Court held a continued hearing on the Motion on September 10, 2021.
17 111. Law and Analvsis
18 a. Court's Authority to reduce the charge of Familv Violence as a Third Degree Felon to a Misdemeanor 19
20 Under 9 GCA § 30.20(b), the court has the discretion to reduce a felony family violence 21
charge to a misdemeanor upon a written, noticed motion prior to commencement of trial.
22
23 However, this discretion is limited when the family violence charge is the defendant's third
24 offense and the charge for 3rd Degree Family Violence is brought under 9 GCA § 30.20(a)(3), 25 which states, "for the third offense, the offense shall be classified as a third degree felony and 26 the court shall impose a sentence of no less than one (1) year imprisonment. The person, upon Z7
28
People v. Mathezzs, CF0281-2 I DECISION AND ORDER
Page 2 o f 1 0
1 conviction, shall be termed a 'repeat offender' and may be subject to extended terms pursuant 2 to § 80.38 of Article 2, Chapter 80 of this Title.as 3 In this case, the third degree family violence charge appears to have been brought 4
generally under 9 GCA § 30.20(a), and not specifically subsection (a)(3). Despite this, 5
6 however, Section 30.20(a)(3) specifically mandates that, upon the offender's third offense for
7 family violence, the defendant shall be deemed a "repeat offender," and the court does not have 8 the authority to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. Consequently, the defendant shall be 9
charged with a third degree felony.
10
11 In order to determine whether to grant the Defendant's motion to reduce the third degree
12 felony charge to a misdemeanor, the Court shall consider the factors enumerated under 9 GCA 13 § 30.20(c):
14 (1) the extent or seriousness of the victim's injuries, 15 (2) the defendant's history of violence against the same victim whether charged or uncharged,
16 (3) the use of a gun or other weapon by the defendant, 17 (4) the defendant's prior criminal history, (5) the victim's attitude and conduct regarding the incident, 18 (6) the involvement of alcohol or other substance, and the defendant's history of substance abuse as reflected in the defendant's criminal history and other sources, 19 and
20 (7) the defendant's history of and amenability to counseling.
21 The Court will now address each factor in tum. 22 b. Analvsis of the 9 GCA §30.20(c) Factors:
23 1. The Ext ent of the Victim's Injuries: The Declaration filed along with 24
25 the Magistrate's Complaint in this case states that the Victim sustained some physical injuries.
26 See Mag. Comal. p. 3. Specifically, an officer observed swelling and bruising under the
27 Victim's eye, swelling on the back of her head and her jaw, and observed the Victim placing 28 ice on her hand. Id. Bodily injury is defined under 9 GCA § 16.l0(b) as "physical pain, illness, People v. Mattheus, CF028 l -21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 3 of 10
1 unconsciousness or any impairment of the physical condition." Bodily injury as defined here is 2 different than serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is defined as bodily injury which 3 creates serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of death or serious, permanent 4
d i sfi gure me nt , se ve re or i nt e nse physi c a l pa i n, or prot ra c t e d l oss or i mpa i rme nt of 5
6 consciousness or of the function of any bodily member or organ under 9 GCA § 16. 10(c).
7 T he Vi c t i m i n t hi s c a se ha s be e n d e sc ri be d a s ha vi ng some pa i n a nd physi c a l 8 impairment consistent with the statutory definition of bodily injury, as evidenced by the 9 account of her placing ice on her hand and the officer's observed bruising and swelling.
10
11 Although the injury purported to have occurred here does not rise to the level of serious bodily
12 injury, "serious bodily injury" is not required. Thus, the fact that the Victim allegedly sustained 13 some bodily injury weighs against granting the motion.
14 2. The Defendant's History of Violence against the Same Victim: The 15
Defendant argues that there is no history of violence against this Victim and the People did not 16
17 argue nor present any evidence that there is a history of violence against the Victim in this case.
18 The Defendant's prior family violence offenses named a different victim than the Victim named 19 in this case. Additionally, the Victim in this case filed a declaration in support of the 20 Defendant's Motion to Reduce and did not indicate that there have been any prior instances of 21
family violence against her. This factor weighs in favor of granting the motion.
22
23 3. Use of a Gun or Other Weapon: The Defendant is alleged to have
24 grabbed a mop from the named Victim and struck her on top of her head with it, and also hit the 25 Victim on her hand with a cellphone. Mag. Con pl. p. 3, Deal.. Although the People have not 26 argued that these implements are weapons for purposes of this factor, the Court considers 27
28 whether a mop and a cellphone are "weapons" as contemplated by 9 GCA § 30.20(c). It is
People v. Mat/zeus, C F 0 2 8 l - 2 1 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 4 of 10
I noteworthy to point out that this section does not require the Court to find that the Defendant 2 used a "deadly weapon," only a "weapon." Compare, 9 GCA § 30.200, which refers to the use 3 of a "deadly weapon." A "deadly weapon" is defined as a "firearm, or other weapon, device, 4
instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used 5
6 or is intended to be used is known to the defendant to be capable of producing death or serious
7 bodily injury." 9 GCA § 16.10(d). Indeed, the Defendant is not charged with any special 8 allegation of "Possession or Use of A Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony." This 9 would indicate that the legislature, in crafting this section of law, did not intend that the weapon 10
11 used by the Defendant be necessarily capable, in and of itself, of producing death or serious
12 bodily injury, but does appear to require a court to consider the Defendant's intended use of the 13 object in causing physical harm to his victim.
14 The Court has already determined that, based upon the allegations in the Magistrate's 15 Complaint, an officer observed swelling and bruising under the Victim's eye, swelling on the 16
17 back of her head and her jaw, and observed the Victim placing ice on her hand. Supra, see also,
18 Mag. Con pl. p. 3. Thus, while the Court finds that the manner in which the mop and cellphone 19 were used against the Victim in this case does not rise to the level of a "deadly weapon," the 20 Court finds that the mop and cellphone were used as weapons to cause some physical injury to 21
the alleged victim.' This factor weighs against granting the motion.
22
23 4. The Defendant's P ri or Criminal History: The People argue that, due
24 to the Defendant's prior criminal history of family violence, the current felony family violence 25 charge should not be reduced to a misdemeanor. Specifically, the People cite to the Defendant's 26
27
28 1 But. see, Davis v. State, 945 A.2d 1167 (Del. 2008)(Supreme Court found that the manner in which a mop wringer was used by the Defendant against his victim constituted a deadly weapon under the circumstances).
People v. Mat/zeus, CF028l»21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 5 o f 10
prior family violence convictions in CF0618-18 and in CM0365-17. The People argue that the 2 convictions in these cases require the Defendant to automatically be deemed a "repeat offender"
3 under 9 GCA § 30.20(a)(3). People's Opp. to Mot. to Reduce p. 3. Although the Defendant 4
5 disagrees that the Court should find the global plea agreement in which the Defendant entered
6 to resolve the family violence charges against him in CF0618-18 and CF0365-17, the Court
7 finds Defendant's arguments unpersuasive, and agrees with the People.
8 Section § 30.20(a) of the Family Violence Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:
9 (a) Any person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly commits an act 10 of family violence, as defined in § 30.10 of this Chapter, is guilty of a 11 misdemeanor, or of a third degree felony, and shall be sentenced as follows:
12 (1) for the first offense, the court shall impose a sentence of no less than forty-eight (48) hours imprisonment, 13
14 (2) for the second offense, the court shall impose a sentence of no less than thirty (30) days imprisonment, and 15 (3) for the third offense, the offense shall be classified as a third degree 16 felony and the court shall impose a sentence of no less than one (1) year 17 imprisonment. The person, upon conviction, shall be termed a "repeat offender" and may be subject to extended terms pursuant to § 80.38 of 18 Article 2, Chapter 80 of this Title. 19 The Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201 of the Guam Rules of Evidence of the 20 Defendant's prior family violence cases: (1) People of Guam v. Bryan Mattheus, Superior Court 21
of Guam Criminal Case No. CF0618-18, in which he was Indicted for Aggravated Assault (As ZN
23 a 3rd Degree Felony), SPECIAL ALLEGATION: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
24 Commission of a Felony, Terrorizing (As a 3rd Degree Felony), SPECIAL ALLEGATION: 25 Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, (3) Family Violence 26 (As a 3rd Degree Felony), SPECIAL ALLEGATION: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in 27
28
People v. Mattheus, CF028l-21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 6 o f 10
l the Commission of a Felony, Reckless Conduct (As a Misdemeanor), Assault (As a 2 Misdemeanor), Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor) and Violation of a Court Order (As a 3
Misdemeanor), and (2) People of Guam v. Eries Matthus, aka Bryan Mattheus, Superior Court 4 of Guam Criminal Case No. CF0365-17, in which he was charged via Magistrate's Complaint 5
6 with Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) and Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). Both
7 cases involved the same victim, but a different victim from the instant case. Each case was 8 founded upon a separate set of allegations occurring on different days and in varying degrees of g culpability, therefore, the convictions are for two separate and distinct matters. Moreover, there 10
11 is nothing in the global Plea Agreement in CF06I8-18 and CF0365-17 which evidences any
12 intent by the People or the Defendant that the result of a guilty plea for each case would be 13 considered a single conviction for any purpose, including the repeat offender provisions of 9 14 GCA § 30.20(a)(3). There is no justification for such an application of a global resolution when 15 it is not clearly provided for in the agreement between the parties, nor accepted by the court.
16
17 The Court also takes judicial notice of Defendant's convictions in CF0618-18 and
18 CF0365-17 through the entryof GUILTY pleas in each case, albeit through a single global plea 19 agreement. Defendant provides no legal authority which supports any argument that a global 20 resolution which requires the Defendant to plead GUILTY to unrelated charges in separate 21
cases is counted only as a single conviction. In CF0618-17, Defendant pled GUILTY to the 22
23 charge of FAMILY VIOLENCE (As a 3rd Degree Felony), and, in CF0365-17, Defendant pled
24 GUILTY to the charge of FAMILY VIOLENCE (As a Misdemeanor). Plea Agreement (Nov. 25 27, 2020), Judgment of Conviction (Nov. 27, 2020). Additional support for the court finding 26 separate convictions in his earlier cases is that he received separate one (1) year sentences of 27
28 incarceration for each offense: One year for the Third Charge of Family Violence (As a Third
People v Matllezls, CF0281-21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page7 of 10
l Degree Felony) in CF0618-18, and One year for the First Charge of Family Violence (As a 2 Misdemeanor) in CM0365-17, to be served consecutively. Id. For these reasons, the court finds 3 this factor to weigh against Defendant's motion.
4
5 5. The Victim's Attitude and Conduct regarding the Incident: Here, the
6 named Victim, Jenefif Epoch, has filed a declaration in support of the Motion to Reduce and
7 expressed a desire for the charges to be dismissed altogether. Deal. of Jenefif Erich 116. The
8 Victim states that she and Defendant are expecting a child together and she would like to stay 9 with the Defendant and for him to help take care of the baby. Id. 11 11. The Victim also 10 indicated a desire to have contact with the Defendant, for the charges to be as low as possible if
12 the case is not to be dismissed, and stated that the Defendant is a good person. Id. 111] 3, 5, 6-8.
13 The Victim has made it clear that she desires the charge to be reduced or that she would like the 14 case dismissed altogether, therefore her attitude and conduct weigh in favor of granting the 15
motion.
16
17 6. T he Involvement of Alcohol or Other Substance/History of
18 Substance Use: There are no allegations of alcohol or drug use in the Declaration to the 19 Magistrate's Complaint or the Indictment in this case. However, in the Victim's Declaration in 20 support of the Motion to Reduce, the Victim indicates that she believes that the Defendant 21
drinks and uses drugs sometimes. During the hearing on the Motion, the Defendant also 22
23 indicated that he has a substance abuse problem but is unable to receive any treatment while he
z4 is in jail. Hrg. Min. 9:57:48AM (Sept. 10, 2021). Although the Defendant during the hearing 25 indicated a desire for substance use treatment, his actions belie this statement. As a condition of 26 his probation in CF0618-18 and CM0365-17, the Defendant was ordered to have a drug and 27
28 alcohol assessment at Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center, and never completed the
People v. Malheur, CF0281-21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 8 of 10
assessment. If he was committed to getting such treatment, as he indicated during the hearing, 2 . . . . .
he would arguably have done so in the period from the entry of his GUILTY pleas in the earner 3 cases in November 2020, until charged with the crimes alleged in this case in June, 2021.
4
5 Based on the Defendant's history of substance abuse and admitting to having a
6 substance use problem during the hearing, but there being no evidence before the Court that
7 drugs or alcohol were involved in this particular instance, this factor weighs neither in favoror s against granting the Motion to Reduce.
9 7. The Defendant's History of and Amenability to Counseling: As 10
11 discussed, above, the Defendant was previously ordered to complete an intake and assessment
12 at Client Services and Family Counseling through the court and at Guam Behavioral Health and 13 Wellness Center in CF0618-18 and CM0365-17. The Defendant has either failed to show up for 14 his intake and processing at Client Services and Family Counseling or rescheduled. During the 15
16 hearing on the Motion the Defendant claimed to have had transportation issues which prevented
17 him firm attending his prior appointments for counseling. Hrg. Min. 9:56:I1AM (Sept. 10,
18 2021). The Defendant also mentioned that the Department of Corrections has limited options in 19 re ga rd t o c ounse l i ng a va i l a bl e t o hi m. Hrg. M i n. 1 0 : 0 0 : 1 5 AM (Se pt . 1 0 , 2 0 2 1 ). As 20 demonstrated by the Defendant's prior history, including a violation of probation in CF0618-
21
18/CM0365-17, for failure to report to Probation for intake and processing, the Court is weary 22
23 about Defendant's claims during the hearing to being amenable to counseling and treatment.
24 Based on his failure to attend and complete counseling and substance use treatment as ordered 25 in his previous cases, this factor weighs against granting the motion.
26 // 27 z8 N
People v. Matlzeus, CF0281-2 I DECISION AND ORDER
Page 9 of 10
Iv. Conclusion
2 Although the Defendant has assured the Court that he will attend counseling and 3 treatment, and the Victim expressed a preference for the Defendant to be charged with the 4
lowest possible offense, the Court does not find these to be persuasive enough to warrant a 5
6 reduction in the felony family violence offense as charged, particularly in light of other factors
7 weighing significantly heavily against grating the motion. Based on the Court's analysis of each 8 of the factors set forth in Section 30.20, including the Defendant's prior criminal history and 9 convictions, his failure to comply with counseling and treatment mandates under his prior 10
11 family violence cases, and the injuries sustained by the Victim in this instance, the Court
12 hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Reduce the Family Violence Charge to a
13 Misdemeanor.
14 so ORDERED this D e a zW m v vivo 15
16
17 \ I MARIA T. CENZON J UDGE, $UPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 18
19
20 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL
21 I acknnwiedge that an electronic copy01 the original was e-mailed to:
22 I96, W. Pole 23 Date: 12/alzInmenz0hl/,»~ 24 /` x Deputy Clerk, Superior CoupofGuam 25
26
27
28
People v. Mat/lens, CF028l-21 DECISION AND ORDER
Page 10 of 10