People v. Mendiola

Opinion

L~C~L) ..i ~ ~ 1 ~ 2 7~!~OCT27 ~i 5~ 20 CLERY ~F’ CO~jR~

N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0343-20 7 ) ) 8 Plaintiff, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. vs. ) PEOPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ANTHONY GREGORY MENDIOLA, ) 11 (aka “Ton Mendiola”) ) ) 12 Defendant. ) 13 ) 14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on July 29, 2020, on the 16 People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Charge 1: Murder (the “Motion to Dismiss”). 17 Defendant Anthony Gregory Mendiola (“Defendant”) was present and represented by Joseph T. 18 19 McDonald, Esq., and the People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney General Sean 20 Brown. All parties appeared remotely via Zoom platform pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam 21 Administrative Order No. ADM2O2O-265.’ Also present remotely were Defendant’s Third 22 Party Custodians and the Victim Services Center Advocate from the Office of the Attorney 23 General. The court considered the pleadings on the record and the parties’ oral argument during 24 the hearing and granted the People’s Motion to Dismiss. However, the court reserved on the 25 26 question of whether the charge would be dismissed with or without prejudice and took that 27 The Court inquired whether any parties objected to proceeding remotely on the Zoom platform and the parties 28 ~xpressed no objection to proceeding as authorized.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Pagelofli 1 issue under advisement pursuant to CVR 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. 2 Having duly considered the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues the

following Decision and Order and dismisses without prejudice Charge 1: Murder, together with 4 the attendant Special Allegation. Charges 2 and 3 are undisturbed following this Decision and 5 6 Order. 7 BACKGROUND 8 It is uncontroverted that, on or about June 23, 2020, Anthony Gregory Mendiola

(“Defendant”) shot Joey Zamora (“Zamora”) while Zamora was inside Mendiola’s residence, 10 and Zamora died. Decl. to Magistrate’s Complaint (June 25, 2020). As a result of this incident, 11 12 Mendiola was charged with Murder (As a 1st Degree Felony) with a Special Allegation: 13 Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony; Possession of a 14 Firearm Without a Valid Firearms Identification Card (As a 3rd Degree Felony); and Possession 15 of an Unregistered Firearm (As a 3rd Degree Felony). On July 7, 2020, the People of Guam 16 (“People”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Charge 1: Murder (“Motion”). The 17 People’s Motion was made pursuant to 8 GCA §~ 80.70 and 10.50 and was based upon “a 18 19 significant change in the understanding of the existing evidence since the day the case was 20 charged and brought before the Magistrate Judge.” People’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1 (July 7, 2020). 21 The People disclosed that it had received information that was not previously known to it 22 upon the charging of the Defendant, specifically: 1) Defendant was inside his home when the 23 Victim entered the house, 2) Witnesses overheard the Victim appearing angry and yelling 24 profanities outside of Defendant’s residence as he made attempts to enter the residence and then 25 26 subsequently entered the residence, and 3) the Victim was shot from the front, rather than from 27 behind as set forth in the Magistrate’s Complaint. Id. at 2. The People confirm in its moving 28

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 2 of 11 1 papers that “the facts as applied to Charge 1 [Murder] do engage the Castle Doctrine. The 2 People of Guam note that the Castle Doctrine is a bar to prosecution and as a result Charge 1 is

barred.” Id. (citing 9 G.C.A. §~ 7.112 and 7.113)(emphasis added). The “Castle Doctrine” 4 provisions are found in Title 9, Guam Code Annotated, Article 5. 5 6 On July 13, 2020, Defendant filed his Response to the Motion, seeking dismissal with ~ prejudice on several grounds, including immunity provided under the Castle Doctrine. The 8 People failed to file a written Reply, but objected to dismissal with prejudice during the oral

argument on the Motion. 10 DISCUSSION 11 12 Although the People’s Motion to Dismiss is facially appropriately grounded upon 8 13 G.C.A. § 80.70 and § 10.50, the court’s focus in this particular case is on the application of the 14 Castle Doctrine (Title 9, Guam Code Annotated, Article 5) to the offense sought to be 15 dismissed. The Guam Supreme Court has recognized the legislative intent of the Castle 16 Doctrine, as codified in the statute, is to provide a cognizable defense to “law-abiding people to 17 protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of 18 19 prosecution or civil action from acting in defense of themselves and others. ... Therefore, it is 20 the intent of I Liheslatura that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his 21 or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly 22 retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.” People of Guam v. Xo Isi John, 2016 Guam 21, ¶ 56 23 (Guam2Ol6)(quoting9 G.C.A. §7.111 (addedbyP.L. 32-111 (Feb. 10, 2014)). 24 In furtherance of this declared intent, 9 G.C.A. §7.112 provides, in relevant part, as 25 26 follows: 27 (a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or another when using 28

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 3 of 11 1 defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if: 2 3 (1) the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or 4 forcefully entered, a business, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that 5 person’s will from the business, residence, or occupied vehicle; and 6 (2) the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that 7 an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 8 Id. § 7.112(a) (added by Pub. L. 32-111 (Feb. 10, 2014)) (emphases added).

10 Moreover, when a person unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s 11 residence, then that person “is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful 12 act involving force or violence.” See Id. § 7.112(c) (added by Pub. L. 32-111 (Feb. 10, 2014)). 13 Armed with this presumption then, a person who uses defensive force as permitted under 14 Section 7.112 is immune from prosecution pursuant to Section 7.113(b) (“A person who uses 15 16 force as permitted in § 7.112 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal 17 prosecution and civil action for the use of such force....”). 18 The presumption of Section 7.112(a) does not apply, however, if the person against 19 whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the residence, 20 and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial

supervision order of no contact against that person.2 Additionally, the immunity against

23 prosecution contained in Section 7.113 is restricted by circumstances enumerated in Sections 24 7.113(b)(1)-(3), none of which are invoked by the facts currently known to the People and to 25 the Defense. 26 27 Other exceptions to this presumption are included in 9 G.C.A. §7.112(b)(2) and (3); however, they are not 28 applicable based upon the facts alleged in this case.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 4 of 11 1 However, notwithstanding the People’s written declaration that the Murder charge is 2 “barred,” at the hearing on the Motion, the People expressed concern against a dismissal with

prejudice of the Murder charge, stating that the case is “not over,” and that there is a chance, 4 however slight, that during the course of further investigation, new evidence may surface which 5 6 nullifies the presumption that Zamora’s attempts to enter the residence were with the intent to ~ commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Minutes of Hearing on Mot. To Dismiss at 8 11:19:53 — 11:20:42 (July 29, 2020). Not necessarily contradictory yet seeking an opposite

conclusion is the Defense’s urging that the People must exercise more careful and deliberate 10 investigation rather than racing to charge Mendiola with Murder, and further, that a dismissal 11 12 with prejudice would “send a strong message that when bringing charges, the People must pay 13 more careful attention to fact gathering prior to making a decision to charge.” Def. ‘s Resp. to 14 People’s Mot. to Dismiss at 4 (citing United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 342 (1988)(”It is 15 self-evident that dismissal with prejudice always sends a stronger message than dismissal 16 without prejudice, and is more likely to induce salutary changes in procedures....”). 17 The issue of immunity from prosecution based upon the Castle Doctrine defense has not 18 19 been addressed by the Guam Supreme Court,3 however, of particular note is the Decision and 20 Order issued in People v. Duenas, Criminal Case No. CM0532-16 (Dec. 9, 2016)(Barcinas, I.), 21 which the court finds helpful. In Duenas, the defendant was charged with Family Violence 22 when he assaulted his girlfriend by slapping her with an open palm. The Defendant claimed he 23 was justified in using this force under the Castle Doctrine because he was protecting his home 24 and his family member when “he had been surprised at his residence at 4 am by the victim, who 25 26 People v. John, supra, involved the issue of the trial court’s decision to exclude jury instructions addressing the 27 affirmative defense of Castle Doctrine and, therefore, is not controlling in this particular instance. This case involves a pre-trial request to apply the immunity provisions of the Castle Doctrine statute, thereby barring prosecution 28 orever.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 5 of 11 1 did not live at the residence and had apparently broken in. She allegedly harassed Defendant 2 and his mother, leading Defendant to slap her in an attempt to stop her harassment.” Decision

and Order at p. 1. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice and Expunge, 4 which the Peopleopposed by contradicting the Defendant’s claim that the victim was not in the 5 6 home legally. The court ultimately denied the motion based on a lack of evidence provided ~ during the hearing supporting Defendant’s motion, and this court finds the discussion on the 8 law to be instructive.

Guam’s Castle Doctrine statute appears to mimic its companion provisions from South 10 Carolina, and both statutes provide a guarantee against prosecution for crimes to which the

affirmative defense applies.4 In Duenas, the trial court ruled that the question of whether

13 immunity under Section 7.113 bars prosecution in a particular case requires a court to conduct 14 “a pre-trial hearing on the question of immunity wherein a defendant bears the burden of 15 proving the elements of the castle doctrine by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citations 16 omitted). While Duenas is distinguishable on its facts from the instant matter,5 the court finds 17 that, absent Guam Supreme Court controlling the court’s decision here, case authority from 18 19 South Carolina is persuasive. 20 The case of State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283, 786 S.E.2d 132 (2016), provides this court with 21 some guidance with regard to addressing the People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and 22 the Defense’s request to dismiss with prejudice on the basis of immunity under Section 7.113. 23 The defendant in Jones was charged with murder after she stabbed her boyfriend in the chest in 24 25 ________________________

Decision and Order at 3 (fn. 1). 26 For example, the seriousness of the offense in Duenas does not rise to the level of Murder as in this case, and in hat instance, the victim refused to cooperate further with the prosecution. See, People’s Motion for Dismissal 27 ~Vithout Prejudice (Feb. 28, 2017)(victim informed the People she will not cooperate in the prosecution of the case). [he trial court ultimately dismissed and expunged the matter against Defendant Duenas. Order of Dismissal with 28 ~rejudice, Criminal Case CM0532-16 (Feb. 28, 2017).

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 6 of 11 1 the couple’s home while she was fleeing the apartment for her safety.6 She asserted immunity 2 from prosecution under South Carolina’s Castle Doctrine laws, which is virtually identical to

Guam’s statute with the exception of some provisions which do not apply to the facts here. 4 Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the trial court found that Jones was 5 6 entitled to immunity under the circumstances. The State appealed the ruling on several grounds, ~ including that the evidence in the record did not support the judge’s determination that the 8 defendant “believed she was in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining bodily injury

and that such fear was reasonable.” Jones, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136. 10 On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court 11 12 granting immunity after scrutinizing the analysis applied by the trial court, finding as follows: 13 Consistent with the Castle Doctrine and the text of the Act, a valid case of self-defense must exist, and the trial court must necessarily consider the elements 14 of self-defense in determining a defendant’s entitlement to the Act’s immunity. (Citation omitted). Therefore, the defendant must demonstrate the elements of 15 self-defense, save the duty to retreat, by a preponderance of the evidence. 16 In order to establish a case of self-defense, the defendant must demonstrate 17 the following elements: 18 First, the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty. Second, the defendant must have actually believed he was in 19 imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he 20 actually was in such imminent danger. Third, if his defense is based upon his belief of imminent danger, a reasonably prudent man of ordinary 21 firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief. If the defendant actually was in imminent danger, the circumstances were such as 22 would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike 23 the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm or losing his own life. Fourth, the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding 24 the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance. 25 26 27 The facts of the case establish that Jones was being physically assaulted by the victim prior to the stabbing incident 28 and that she had phoned a friend to pick her up from the home when the stabbing occurred.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 7 of 11 1 Jones at p. 141-142 (citing State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 371 n. 4, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 n. 4 2 (quoting State v. Davis, 282 S.C. 45, 46, 317 S.E.2d 452, 453 (1984)). Except for the retreat

requirement under the self-defense statute (which is not applicable under the Castle Doctrine), 4 the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the evidence in the record supported the trial 5 6 judge’s findings as to each element of self-defense; therefore, immunity applied. 7 In the instant case, the Defense did not meet its burden of establishing, by a 8 preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendant is entitled to immunity under the Castle

Doctrine statute. During the hearing of the motion, Defendant did not proffer any testimony to 10 support its request for immunity such that the Murder charge should be dismissed with 11 12 prejudice because the defendant “held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious 13 bodily injury to himself.. .or another when using defensive force” which resulted in Zamora’s 14 death. Only conclusory legal arguments buttressed by an otherwise unsubstantiated narrative of 15 the events as they purportedly transpired, according to the defendant, were presented to the 16 court. 17 More specifically, in response to the Court’s inquiry about whether Mr. Mendiola and the 18 19 victim Mr. Zamora had a previous relationship which might have invalidated the presumption 20 that Zamora was there for an illegal purpose and whether the victim’s entry into the home was 21 “forcible,” thus supporting the presumption in Section 7.112, defense counsel proffered the 22 following: 23 MR. McDONALD: First of all, you asked about the presumption and whether he 24 had the lawful right to be there. .Mr. Zamora had been uninvited from the ..

residence for several months. And in fact my client had filed a police complaint to 25 have him removed as early as, I believe it was September or August of 2019. So 26 there’s.. .already you can see that he had been uninvited and that my client had taken the next steps which is to take some sort of law enforcement action to 27 forcibly remove him from the premises. Well, lucky enough the victim had gone by the time the police had shown up. So, this invitation was not just limited to my 28

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 8 of 11 1 client, there was also.. .it was also extended to other members of the Mendiola family who had insisted that the victim not be at that residence. And you know, 2 your honor, I don’t want to besmirch the victim at this point in time, but let’s just say that there would be reasons for them to disinvite the victim from the premises.7 4 However, Defense Counsel did not proffer any additional evidence to support any claim which 5 6 may have justified a belief that he was “in reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or serious 7 bodily injury to himself or. another when using defensive force” as required under Section . .

8 7.112. Instead, he described the “forceful entry” by Mr. Zamora as follows: 9 10 MR. McDONALD: Now, as for the forceful entry and whether or not my client had knowledge that a forceful entry was happening, those are clear on the facts 11 and we’re prepared to show with any level of proof that, in fact, the victim had made an entry that was noisy, not from the doorsteps of the residence, but down 12 the road ‘cause there’s a driveway to the residence where he could be overheard, I 13 believe, even by other witnesses. That he was,.. .that the victim was coming down and announcing a noisy announcement of his presence, after which he entered 14 into a heated discussion with-my client and tried to enter the residence through a door! And my client was saying, “No! Don’t come in! Don’t come in!” So he 15 already attempted.. .we already see in that first attempt that there was both parts 16 of that presumption present: that there was knowledge on behalf of my client and that there was an attempt at an unlawful break-in by the victim. Unfortunately for 17 the victim, it was accomplished on the second attempt where he did gain entrance to the residence through an unlocked door and that’s where we have now.. .uh.. 18 the current matter in front of your honor. So both instances are there and, in fact, 19 he did not have any lawful presence at the premises. 20 COURT: Thank you, Mr. McDonald, I just want to confirm as well, again, because the Court does not have the benefit of any of the evidence or any of the 21 discovery materials that both the People and Defense do have. I do want to just make sure, because I think it is relevant to determining whether or not the court 22 dismisses the matter with or without prejudice that being really the sole reason —

23 why I’m having this very extensive discussion on this matter. And so, I just want to make sure I understand that your position, Mr. McDonald, is that the 24 presumption [of 7.112] continued to apply in this particular case to allow Mr. Mendiola the benefit of the Castle Doctrine and was not removed by virtue of, for 25 example, an apparent or implied previous invitation to be a resident of the home, 26 or that there was no injunction that was in place. So, he absolutely had no right to be in the home; you indicated that he was “uninvited” for some months now; and 27 that the evidence would be sufficient to support the presumptions that Mr. 28 ‘Motion Hearing at 11:37:35 (July 29, 2020).

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 9 of 11 1 Mendiola was in fear of death or serious bodily injury. And so, you’re asking this court to dismiss this matter with prejudice.. .or at least the murder charge.. with .

2 prejudice. Is that correct?

McDONALD: Yes, your honor. Thank you. 4 Motion Hearing at 11:38:48 - 11: 42:04 (July 29, 2020). 5 6 However, in response the People offered that Zamora was actually staying at the ~ residence some weeks and perhaps even days prior to the shooting resulting in his death. The 8 People also statedthat Mr. Zamora was sleeping in the driveway and had clothes in the home.8

These facts, if taken to be true, raises a significant question for the court as to whether, under 10 the circumstances, Mr. Mendiola’ s actions were justified such that immunity should be granted 11 12 at this pre-trial stage and without competent evidence having been presented to the court. The 13 defense not having offered any evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 14 his actions were justified such that immunity under the Castle Doctine statute is available to 15 him to bar future prosecution if new evidence shall support such prosecution, and given that 16 there remains a specter of validity to Zamora’s presence of the home in light of the 17 government’s rebuttal, and finally, this court finding that only a noisy announcement of his 18 19 arrival and unauthorized entry into the home were offered to support the “imminent peril” 20 requirement of Section 7.112, the court finds that the defense has not satisfied its burden that he 21 is entitled to a dismissal with prejudice at this time. As the Jones case illustrates, immunity is 22 available to a defendant under the Castle Doctrine; however, the evidence in support of such 23 claims to bar prosecution at the pre-trial stage must satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” 24 standard. Because it did not rise to that level here, the court dismisses the Murder charge and 25 26 Special Allegation without prejudice. 27 28 81d. at 11:42:13—11:42:54.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page lOof 11 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth herein,9 the Court dismisses without prejudice Charge 1: Murder

and the Special Allegation: Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commision of a 4 Felony and denies Defendant’s request to dismiss this charge and attendant special allegation 5 6 with prejudice. Charges 2 and 3 remain undisturbed. 7 SO ORDERED this OCT 27 ~

10 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON Judge, Superior Court of Guam 11 12 13 14 15 16 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge~tIlat an electronic 17 copy onlie onglial was e-mailed to: ft6 Pr~f~i~c 18 19 ~ate:tfr~b~7~e: 20 ~n~~)ç4)( C(W?. Ô~puty Clerk, ~Werior Court of Guam

21 22 In addition to the arguments addressed herein, Defendant urges the court to apply an analysis of Speedy Trial Act ‘actors set forth in People of Guam v. Aromin, 2014 Guam 3 to dismiss the charge with prejudice; however, this 23 )articular basis for dismissal is not properly before the court. Even if the court were to consider the application of the factors in Aromin, the Defendant has failed to establish how those factors apply to the facts of this case sufficient 24 a allow the court to properly address them as this portion of his Response merely lists the factors but fails to apply hem to the facts of this case. Consequently, they are not considered by the court in ruling on defendant’s request for 25 a dismissal with prejudice. Finally, citing to United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 342 (1988), the Defense urges lismissal with prejudice in order to “send a strong message that when bringing charges, the People must pay more 26 :areful attention to fact gathering prior to making a decision to charge.” Response at p. 4. However, such reliance is nisplaced in this context. The Court in Taylor also reasoned that “[tihe [lower] court’s desire to send a strong 27 message to the Government that unexcused delays will not be tolerated is by definition implied in almost every case under the [Speedy Trial] Act, and standing along, does not suffice to justify barring reprosecution in light of all the 28 other circumstances.” Taylor at 343.

Decision and Order Re. People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice People of Guam v. Anthony Gregory Mendiola, Criminal Case No. CF0343-20 Page 11 of 11