FILED SUi'ERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 2023 OCT 12 PM I: 16 3 CLERK Of COURT
BY:.--#-- 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0134-23 9 vs. IO DECISION AND ORDER II JULIO MEIKAWIN aka Christ Joshua 12 Wenei aka Christ Wenei aka Julio Melkawin aka Joshua Wenei aka Junior 13 Meikawin, 14 Defendant. 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on September 26, 2023, for 18 hearing on Defendant JULIO MEIKAWIN aka Christ Joshua Wenei aka Christ Wenei aka 19 Julio Melkawin aka Joshua Wenei aka Junior Meikawin's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss 20 Due to Civil Compromise. Present were Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender 21 William C Bischoff and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shuck on behalf of the People of 22 Guam. Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now 23 issues the following Decision and OrdeL 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 11, 2023, Defendant was charged with two counts of Violation of a Court Order 26 (As a Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's Comp!., Apr. 11, 2023). On March 7, 2023, a month prior, 27 Defendant was released with conditions in Criminal Case No. CM009 l-23 after being charged 28 with two counts of Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) against Ms. Tairin Atesom.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CM0134-23 Decision and Order \ Page I of5 (Magistrate's Comp!. In CM0091-23, Mar. 7, 2023). Defendant was ordered "to stay away from, 2 and have no contact with the victim(s) [Tairin Atesom], either in person, through a third party, by 3 telephone or letter, email, text or any electronic devices" and to "stay away from the victim(s), 4 his/her/their residence, dwelling, place of employment, school, day care center, establishment, or 5 any family or social function." (Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond in CM0091- 6 23, Mar. 7, 2023). In this case, Defendant is charged with violating the stay away order in 7 CM0091-23 on April 10, 2023 on two occasions. (Deel. ofRenaida San Nicolas, Magistrate's 8 Comp!., Apr. 11, 2023). Defendant is alleged to have arrived at Ms. Atesom's workplace at 2:00 9 a.m. and tried to talk to her and that later in the day, around 2:00 p.m., he was found within her IO home by her daughter. Id. II On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Attached to the Motion is a 12 Declaration from the alleged victim, Ms. Atesom, acknowledging that she has received 13 satisfaction for her injury. (Deel. of Tairin Atesom ,r 4, Mot. Civil Compromise Ex. I). On 14 August 30, 2023, the Government filed its Opposition. On September 26, 2023, the Court heard 15 additional arguments from the parties and subsequently placed the matter under advisement. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this matter because he and the alleged victim have 18 reached a civil compromise under 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. See generally, Mot. Civil Compromise, Aug. 19 17,2023. 20 Under Guam law: 21 (a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has 22 a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by this 23 Section. 24 (b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has 25 received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, 26 order the criminal action dismissed. 27 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution for the same 28 offense.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CMOI34-23 Decision and Order
Page 2 ofS 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. 2 Here, it is undisputed that Defendant was charged with misdemeanor offenses and no 3 felonies. The Court, however, is concerned with the offense Defendant is charged with - 4 Violation of a Court Order - and does not necessarily find that said offense has a corresponding 5 civil remedy with civil trespass and/or harassment as Defendant is alleged to have been in 6 violation of orders set by the court, which remain in place until otherwise adjusted by the court. 7 Further, while section 80.90 does not explicitly state that the statute is inapplicable to charges of 8 violation of a court order, California law, which served as the basis for Guam's civil compromise 9 statute, excludes violation of a court order charges from its civil compromise statute. See 8 G.C.A. 10 § 80.90, Note; Cal. Pen. Code§§ 1377, 1378. California Penal Code Section 1377 provides: II When the person injured by an act constituting a misdemeanor has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised, as provided in section 1378, except 12 when it is committed as follows: 13 (a) By or upon an officer of justice, while in the execution of the duties of 14 his or her office. (b) Riotously. 15 (c) With an intent to commit a felony. 16 (d) In violation ofany court order as described in Section 273.6 or 273.65. (e) By or upon any family or household member, or upon any person when 17 the violation involves any person described in Section 6211 of the 18 Family Code or subdivision (b) of Section 13700 of this code. (f) Upon an elder, in violation of Section 368 of this code or Section 15656 19 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 20 (g) Upon a child, as described in Section 647 .6 or 11165.6. 21 Cal. Pen. Code § 1377 (emphasis added). 1 In California, the legislative purpose of civil 22 compromise is to remove from criminal prosecution offenses for which there is an adequate civil 23
24 1 Section 273.6 provides in relevant part: 25 (a) Any intentional and knowing violation ofa protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the 26 Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable 27 by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for 28 not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CMO 134-23 Decision and Order
Page 3 ofS remedy instead of "subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of society in 2 general." People v. Stephen, 227 Cal. Rptr. 380, 388 (Cal. App. 1986). Appropriate factors for 3 the Court to consider include: (I) whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal 4 violation; (2) whether the circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to 5 the public was fully vindicated; and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was made 6 voluntarily. People v. Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. 761, 767-68 (Cal. App. 1982). 7 The Court recognizes that unlike California, Guam did not enact the specific prohibition 8 of violation of court order cases from the civil compromise statute. However, the rational of 9 prohibition exists not only because it is difficult to determine whether or not an alleged victim 1o actually received satisfaction for the injury, but because the prosecution of violation of court order 11 cases is of interest to the public. The stay away order Defendant is alleged to have violated stems 12 from a family violence matter. Family violence cases frequently involve victims who, because 13 of their status or relationship to the defendant, may be unduly influenced to civil compromise. 14 Thus, civil compromise of violation of court order matters does not present "circumstances such 15
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED SUi'ERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 2023 OCT 12 PM I: 16 3 CLERK Of COURT
BY:.--#-- 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0134-23 9 vs. IO DECISION AND ORDER II JULIO MEIKAWIN aka Christ Joshua 12 Wenei aka Christ Wenei aka Julio Melkawin aka Joshua Wenei aka Junior 13 Meikawin, 14 Defendant. 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on September 26, 2023, for 18 hearing on Defendant JULIO MEIKAWIN aka Christ Joshua Wenei aka Christ Wenei aka 19 Julio Melkawin aka Joshua Wenei aka Junior Meikawin's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss 20 Due to Civil Compromise. Present were Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender 21 William C Bischoff and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shuck on behalf of the People of 22 Guam. Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now 23 issues the following Decision and OrdeL 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 11, 2023, Defendant was charged with two counts of Violation of a Court Order 26 (As a Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's Comp!., Apr. 11, 2023). On March 7, 2023, a month prior, 27 Defendant was released with conditions in Criminal Case No. CM009 l-23 after being charged 28 with two counts of Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) against Ms. Tairin Atesom.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CM0134-23 Decision and Order \ Page I of5 (Magistrate's Comp!. In CM0091-23, Mar. 7, 2023). Defendant was ordered "to stay away from, 2 and have no contact with the victim(s) [Tairin Atesom], either in person, through a third party, by 3 telephone or letter, email, text or any electronic devices" and to "stay away from the victim(s), 4 his/her/their residence, dwelling, place of employment, school, day care center, establishment, or 5 any family or social function." (Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond in CM0091- 6 23, Mar. 7, 2023). In this case, Defendant is charged with violating the stay away order in 7 CM0091-23 on April 10, 2023 on two occasions. (Deel. ofRenaida San Nicolas, Magistrate's 8 Comp!., Apr. 11, 2023). Defendant is alleged to have arrived at Ms. Atesom's workplace at 2:00 9 a.m. and tried to talk to her and that later in the day, around 2:00 p.m., he was found within her IO home by her daughter. Id. II On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Attached to the Motion is a 12 Declaration from the alleged victim, Ms. Atesom, acknowledging that she has received 13 satisfaction for her injury. (Deel. of Tairin Atesom ,r 4, Mot. Civil Compromise Ex. I). On 14 August 30, 2023, the Government filed its Opposition. On September 26, 2023, the Court heard 15 additional arguments from the parties and subsequently placed the matter under advisement. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this matter because he and the alleged victim have 18 reached a civil compromise under 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. See generally, Mot. Civil Compromise, Aug. 19 17,2023. 20 Under Guam law: 21 (a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has 22 a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by this 23 Section. 24 (b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has 25 received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, 26 order the criminal action dismissed. 27 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution for the same 28 offense.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CMOI34-23 Decision and Order
Page 2 ofS 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. 2 Here, it is undisputed that Defendant was charged with misdemeanor offenses and no 3 felonies. The Court, however, is concerned with the offense Defendant is charged with - 4 Violation of a Court Order - and does not necessarily find that said offense has a corresponding 5 civil remedy with civil trespass and/or harassment as Defendant is alleged to have been in 6 violation of orders set by the court, which remain in place until otherwise adjusted by the court. 7 Further, while section 80.90 does not explicitly state that the statute is inapplicable to charges of 8 violation of a court order, California law, which served as the basis for Guam's civil compromise 9 statute, excludes violation of a court order charges from its civil compromise statute. See 8 G.C.A. 10 § 80.90, Note; Cal. Pen. Code§§ 1377, 1378. California Penal Code Section 1377 provides: II When the person injured by an act constituting a misdemeanor has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised, as provided in section 1378, except 12 when it is committed as follows: 13 (a) By or upon an officer of justice, while in the execution of the duties of 14 his or her office. (b) Riotously. 15 (c) With an intent to commit a felony. 16 (d) In violation ofany court order as described in Section 273.6 or 273.65. (e) By or upon any family or household member, or upon any person when 17 the violation involves any person described in Section 6211 of the 18 Family Code or subdivision (b) of Section 13700 of this code. (f) Upon an elder, in violation of Section 368 of this code or Section 15656 19 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 20 (g) Upon a child, as described in Section 647 .6 or 11165.6. 21 Cal. Pen. Code § 1377 (emphasis added). 1 In California, the legislative purpose of civil 22 compromise is to remove from criminal prosecution offenses for which there is an adequate civil 23
24 1 Section 273.6 provides in relevant part: 25 (a) Any intentional and knowing violation ofa protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the 26 Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable 27 by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for 28 not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CMO 134-23 Decision and Order
Page 3 ofS remedy instead of "subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of society in 2 general." People v. Stephen, 227 Cal. Rptr. 380, 388 (Cal. App. 1986). Appropriate factors for 3 the Court to consider include: (I) whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal 4 violation; (2) whether the circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to 5 the public was fully vindicated; and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was made 6 voluntarily. People v. Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. 761, 767-68 (Cal. App. 1982). 7 The Court recognizes that unlike California, Guam did not enact the specific prohibition 8 of violation of court order cases from the civil compromise statute. However, the rational of 9 prohibition exists not only because it is difficult to determine whether or not an alleged victim 1o actually received satisfaction for the injury, but because the prosecution of violation of court order 11 cases is of interest to the public. The stay away order Defendant is alleged to have violated stems 12 from a family violence matter. Family violence cases frequently involve victims who, because 13 of their status or relationship to the defendant, may be unduly influenced to civil compromise. 14 Thus, civil compromise of violation of court order matters does not present "circumstances such 15
16 (b) In the event of a violation of subdivision (a) that results in physical injury, the person shall be 17 punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 18 However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 48 hours, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated on the record, reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum 19 imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the 20 minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the order during the 21 pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. 22 (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: 23 (1) Any order issued pursuant to Section 6320 or 6389 of the Family Code. 24 (2) An order excluding one party from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of the other. 25 (3) An order enjoining a party from specified behavior that the court determined was necessary to effectuate the order described in subdivision (a). 26 (4) Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 27 6400) of Division lO of the Family Code. 28 Cal. Penal Code§ 273.6.
People v. Meikawin Case No. CM0134-23 Decision and Order
Page 4 ofS 1 that through private settlement the public is fully vindicated." Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. at 768.
2 Accordingly, the Court declines to allow this matter to be civilly compromised and denies
3 Defendant's Motion.
4 CONCLUSION
5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Civil 6 Compromise. Parties shall return for a Status Hearing on November 14, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED this W day of October, 2023. 8
10 I
11 HONORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of'Guam 12
23 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL 24 I acknowledge that an electronic may OHM original was e-mailed 10:
25 AG: P 050 i
26 Data:lOll315T|me:_[i2 h~ 27 Hr{¢v~i<> , & 6 r w / Deputy Clerk, Supekidr Court of Guam 28
People v. Me ikawin Case No. CMOI34-23 Decision and Order
Page 5 of 5