F
FiLED SUPERIOR COURT 1 UF GUAH 2 2¥12I HAR26 PH 2: i v 3 CLERPLOF COURT
4 By? 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0245-20 7 GPD Report No. 20-11619 8 v. DECISION AND ORDER 9 JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE aka John F. Mendiola MOTION AND APPLICATION FOR BAIL 10 DOB: 07/04/1963 REDETERMINATION AND RELEASE 11 ON ELECTRONIC MONITOR Defendant. PROGRAM RELEASE AND THIRD 12 PARTY CUSTODIAN 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on February 12, 2021 for
16 hearing on Defendant Juan Faisao Mendiola aka John F. Mendiola's Ex Parte Motion and
17 Application for Bail Redetermination Hearing Under 8 G.C.A. §40.50 for Release on Electronic
18 Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian 8 G.C.A. §40.20 ("Motion"). Assistant
19 Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and Joshua Walsh represents the Defendant.
20 Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now
21 issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES the Defendant's motion.
22 BACKGROUND 23 The People of Guam filed a complaint against Defendant, charging him with Murder (as a
24 First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
25 Commission of a Felony and Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) with the Special
26 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Magistrate's
27 Con pl. at 1-3 (May 6, 2020). At the magistrate's hearing, Defendant was incarcerated and bail was
28 set at One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) cash. Min. Entry (May 6, 2020).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Application for Bail Redetermination and Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 1 of 4 1 On December 7, 2020, Defendant filed this Motion, seeking "release on his own
2 recognizance or on the electronic monitoring program and a Third-Party Custodian" Mot. at 4.
3 Defendant argued that he has multiple family members able to serve as Third Party Custodians and
4 supervise him during his release, that he will appear at future court dates, that his release on the
5 electronic monitoring program ("EMP") will not endanger anyone, and that keeping him confined
6 at the Department of Corrections ("DOC") endangers him to Covid-19 exposure. Mot. at 3-5. The
7 People oppose, arguing "Defendant poses a substantial risk to the safety of the community due to
8 the nature of this current offense, especially witnesses in this case that are known to him." People's
9 Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Bail Redetermination & Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release
10 and Third Party Custodian ("Opposition") at 4 (Dec. 17, 2020). The Court held a hearing on the
11 matter on February 12, 2021.
12 DISCUSSION
13 A defendant who continues to be detained twenty-four (24) hours after conditions of release
14 are imposed, as a result of his/her inability to meet the release conditions, "shall, upon application,
15 be entitled to have the conditions reviewed by the Court." 8 G.C.A. §40.50(a). In reviewing these
16 conditions, the Court "shall order the person charged to be released on recognizance, unless the
17 [Court] determines, in [its] discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will
18 not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any
19 other person or the community." Id. § 40. 15(b).
20 In determining whether there is a substantial risk of nonappearance or whether a defendant
21 will endanger another person or the community, the Court shall consider the following factors:
22 (1) the nature of the offense charged, the apparent possibility of conviction and the likely sentence, 23 (2) the history and characteristics of the person charged, including: (A) length of his/her residence on Guam, 24 (B) his/her employment status and history, and financial conditions, (C) his/her family ties and relationships, 25 (D)his/her reputation, character, and mental and physical condition, (E) his/her prior criminal record, if any, including any record of prior release 26 on recognizance or on bail (F) his/her history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, 27 (G) the identity of the reasonable members of the community who will vouch for his/her reliability, 28 (H) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, he/she was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Application for Bail Redetermination and Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF0245-20,People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 2 of 4 J
1 or completion of sentence of an offense under federal, state, or local law, and 2 (I) his/her history of compliance with other court order, (3) the nature and seriousness of the danger the person would pose to the community 3 or to any individual members thereof if released, (4) statements of the alleged victim or others as to previous incidences of violence 4 and threats made to the alleged victim, (5) lethality risk assessments or other risk assessments deemed appropriate by the 5 Judiciary of Guam, and (6) any other factors which bear on the risk of willful failure to appear or the danger 6 the person would impose to the community or to any individual member thereof if released. 7
8 8 G.C.A. § 40.l5(c). If release on personal recognizance will not reasonably assure a defendant's
9 appearance as required, or will endanger the safety of another person or the community, the Court
10 shall impose the least onerous conditions of those specified in Section 40.20, such as the placement
of the person "in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise" the
12 defendant or placing the defendant "under supervision by means of electronic monitoring ...." See
13 id. § 40.20(a), (c)-
14 The Court finds that the available information before it does not warrant release of
15 Defendant in this case. The Court is particularly concerned about the nature of the offense and the
16 possibility that Defendant's release may pose a danger to the witnesses in this case.
17 Defendant is charged with Murder (as a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation:
18 Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony and Aggravated Assault (as
19 a Second Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
20 Commission of a Felony. The underlying facts alleged indicate that Defendant shot Victim Peter
21 John Tadeo Rios, Jr. in the chest with a gun, taking his life. It is alleged that the shooting occurred
22 as a result of an argument between the two.
23 Considering the nature of the crimes charged, the Court is concerned that Defendant's
24 release on personal recognizance or EMP will not reasonably assure Defendant's appearance and
25 that his release may endanger others in the community. The Court is particularly concerned for the
26 safety of the two witnesses present at the residence at the time of the altercation, Claire Siguenza
27 and Rae Ann Quidachay. The Court finds there is sufficient cause for concern of these witnesses,
28 considering (1) Claire Siguenza indicated she was afraid of Defendant and (2) Rae Ann Quidachay
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F
FiLED SUPERIOR COURT 1 UF GUAH 2 2¥12I HAR26 PH 2: i v 3 CLERPLOF COURT
4 By? 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0245-20 7 GPD Report No. 20-11619 8 v. DECISION AND ORDER 9 JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE aka John F. Mendiola MOTION AND APPLICATION FOR BAIL 10 DOB: 07/04/1963 REDETERMINATION AND RELEASE 11 ON ELECTRONIC MONITOR Defendant. PROGRAM RELEASE AND THIRD 12 PARTY CUSTODIAN 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on February 12, 2021 for
16 hearing on Defendant Juan Faisao Mendiola aka John F. Mendiola's Ex Parte Motion and
17 Application for Bail Redetermination Hearing Under 8 G.C.A. §40.50 for Release on Electronic
18 Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian 8 G.C.A. §40.20 ("Motion"). Assistant
19 Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and Joshua Walsh represents the Defendant.
20 Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now
21 issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES the Defendant's motion.
22 BACKGROUND 23 The People of Guam filed a complaint against Defendant, charging him with Murder (as a
24 First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
25 Commission of a Felony and Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) with the Special
26 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Magistrate's
27 Con pl. at 1-3 (May 6, 2020). At the magistrate's hearing, Defendant was incarcerated and bail was
28 set at One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) cash. Min. Entry (May 6, 2020).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Application for Bail Redetermination and Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 1 of 4 1 On December 7, 2020, Defendant filed this Motion, seeking "release on his own
2 recognizance or on the electronic monitoring program and a Third-Party Custodian" Mot. at 4.
3 Defendant argued that he has multiple family members able to serve as Third Party Custodians and
4 supervise him during his release, that he will appear at future court dates, that his release on the
5 electronic monitoring program ("EMP") will not endanger anyone, and that keeping him confined
6 at the Department of Corrections ("DOC") endangers him to Covid-19 exposure. Mot. at 3-5. The
7 People oppose, arguing "Defendant poses a substantial risk to the safety of the community due to
8 the nature of this current offense, especially witnesses in this case that are known to him." People's
9 Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Bail Redetermination & Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release
10 and Third Party Custodian ("Opposition") at 4 (Dec. 17, 2020). The Court held a hearing on the
11 matter on February 12, 2021.
12 DISCUSSION
13 A defendant who continues to be detained twenty-four (24) hours after conditions of release
14 are imposed, as a result of his/her inability to meet the release conditions, "shall, upon application,
15 be entitled to have the conditions reviewed by the Court." 8 G.C.A. §40.50(a). In reviewing these
16 conditions, the Court "shall order the person charged to be released on recognizance, unless the
17 [Court] determines, in [its] discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will
18 not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any
19 other person or the community." Id. § 40. 15(b).
20 In determining whether there is a substantial risk of nonappearance or whether a defendant
21 will endanger another person or the community, the Court shall consider the following factors:
22 (1) the nature of the offense charged, the apparent possibility of conviction and the likely sentence, 23 (2) the history and characteristics of the person charged, including: (A) length of his/her residence on Guam, 24 (B) his/her employment status and history, and financial conditions, (C) his/her family ties and relationships, 25 (D)his/her reputation, character, and mental and physical condition, (E) his/her prior criminal record, if any, including any record of prior release 26 on recognizance or on bail (F) his/her history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, 27 (G) the identity of the reasonable members of the community who will vouch for his/her reliability, 28 (H) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, he/she was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Application for Bail Redetermination and Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF0245-20,People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 2 of 4 J
1 or completion of sentence of an offense under federal, state, or local law, and 2 (I) his/her history of compliance with other court order, (3) the nature and seriousness of the danger the person would pose to the community 3 or to any individual members thereof if released, (4) statements of the alleged victim or others as to previous incidences of violence 4 and threats made to the alleged victim, (5) lethality risk assessments or other risk assessments deemed appropriate by the 5 Judiciary of Guam, and (6) any other factors which bear on the risk of willful failure to appear or the danger 6 the person would impose to the community or to any individual member thereof if released. 7
8 8 G.C.A. § 40.l5(c). If release on personal recognizance will not reasonably assure a defendant's
9 appearance as required, or will endanger the safety of another person or the community, the Court
10 shall impose the least onerous conditions of those specified in Section 40.20, such as the placement
of the person "in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise" the
12 defendant or placing the defendant "under supervision by means of electronic monitoring ...." See
13 id. § 40.20(a), (c)-
14 The Court finds that the available information before it does not warrant release of
15 Defendant in this case. The Court is particularly concerned about the nature of the offense and the
16 possibility that Defendant's release may pose a danger to the witnesses in this case.
17 Defendant is charged with Murder (as a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation:
18 Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony and Aggravated Assault (as
19 a Second Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
20 Commission of a Felony. The underlying facts alleged indicate that Defendant shot Victim Peter
21 John Tadeo Rios, Jr. in the chest with a gun, taking his life. It is alleged that the shooting occurred
22 as a result of an argument between the two.
23 Considering the nature of the crimes charged, the Court is concerned that Defendant's
24 release on personal recognizance or EMP will not reasonably assure Defendant's appearance and
25 that his release may endanger others in the community. The Court is particularly concerned for the
26 safety of the two witnesses present at the residence at the time of the altercation, Claire Siguenza
27 and Rae Ann Quidachay. The Court finds there is sufficient cause for concern of these witnesses,
28 considering (1) Claire Siguenza indicated she was afraid of Defendant and (2) Rae Ann Quidachay
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Application for Bail Redetermination and Release on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 3 of 4 1 personally witnessed the altercation and shooting in question. Furthermore, Defendant is a flight
2 risk due to the long prison sentence he faces if convicted. Both 8 G.C.A. §40.l5(b) factors support
3 a finding that Defendant should not be released on his own personal recognizance.
4 Because Defendant's release on personal recognizance is not appropriate, the court must
5 impose the least onerous conditions of those specified in Section 40.20. The court does not agree
6 with Defendant's arguments that a designated custodian or electronic monitoring device would
7 assure both his future court appearance and the safety of the community. These two measures are
8 not onerous enough to overcome both 8 G.C.A. §40.l5(b) factors weighing heavily against
9 Defendant's release back into the community.
10 Lastly the court must determine whether to amend the current imposition of bail at
11 $100,000.00. "'The test for excessiveness of bail is not whether a defendant is financially able to
12 satisfy the requirement ... but whether bail is set an amount higher than reasonably calculated to
13 assure the presence of the accused."' People v. Bruneman, 1996 Guam 3 '][ 9 (quoting United States
14 v. McConnell, 842 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1988), United States v. Bearnard, 631 F.2d 85, 86 (6th
15 Cir. 1980), United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 752 (1987), and Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5
16 (1951)). The Court finds here that Defendant has tremendous motivation to flee, considering the
17 evidence against him and the potential sentence faced if found guilty. The imposition of cash bail at
18 $100,000.00 is not excessive, considering the Court's goal of assuring Defendant's presence.
19 Therefore, there is no reason to amend the bail.
20 CONCLUSION
21 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.
22 Mar . 26 , 2021 23 IT IS SO ORDERED this nuns pro tune to February 12, 2021 .
24 SERVICEvIA E-mAII; I acknowledge that an electronic 25 CODY 01 the original was e-mailed to: M n 5 I f - R a w z m W 26
28 ,Date:3
Deputy Clerk, I `Dme: 3 v. I 'c-v rCour!0fGuam HONORABLE ALBERT() c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Dec is ion and Order Deny ing Defendant's Ex Parte Motion and Applic ation for Bail Redetermination and Releas e on Electronic Monitor Program Release and Third Party Custodian CF 0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 4 of 4