People v. Mendiola

Opinion

! 5. FILED 1 CLERK G? OF COURT 2 2 38 AM II: 38 202~ JUL -3 AMN; zuzuJuL-s t L" 3 3§.l'2=l§§?§{3§1{ SUPERIOR COURT CQUHT 4 OFGUAMQ gr GUAM

6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE )) NO.CF0218-13-02 CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0218-13-02 8 ) GPD REPORT NO. GPD REPORT no. 13-11687 )) 9 vs. VS. ) )) DECISION AND ORDER DECISION 10 ) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DENYING ANTHONY PAUL MENDIOLA, )) CORRECT ILLEGAL TO CORRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE 11 DOB: 12/24/1974 ) 12 12 )) Defendant. ) 13 > 14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came before the Maria T. Cenzon Honorable Maria the Honorable 7, 2024, for aa Cenzon on February 7, 16 16

Motion Paul Mendiola's ("Defendant") Hearing on Defendant Anthony Paul Motion Hearing Amended Motion to ("Defendant") Amended 17 17

18 18 Sentence (the "Motion"). Correct Illegal Sentence Present atat the "Motion").Present hearing were the hearing Defern;lant with were Defendant defense with defense

19 19 counsel Terrence E. counsel Terrence E. Timblin and Assistant Attorney and Assistant General Christine Attorney General S. Tenorio Christine S. the Tenorio for the 20 20 People of Guam Guam ("People"). ("People"). After the hearing, Court took the Court hearing, the Motion under took the Motion advisement under advisement 21 21 pursuant to CVR pursuant to CVR 7-1(€)(6)(D) of the 7.l(e)(6)(D) of the LOCAL LOCAL RULES RULES OF OF THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF 22 23 23 GUAM. GUAM.

24 After reviewing the Defendant's reviewing the Motion and Defendant's Motion the People's and the Opposition with People's Opposition their with their 25 respective subsequent motions, oral subsequent motions, argumentsfrom oral arguments the Defendant from the and the Defendant and and the the People, and 26 applicable statutesand applicable statutes caselaw, andcase theCourt law,the now issues Courtnow thisDecision issuesthis andOrder Decisionand OrderDENYING DENYING 27 27

Defendant's Motion. 28

People v. Mendiola Criminal Case No. CF0218-13-02 Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence to Correct Page l1 of JO of 10 1 P1;0CEDU8AL PROCEDURALAND.FAC.TUAL AND FACTUALBAR;KGR_OUNP BACKGROUND I

2 2 On May May 7, 7, 2013, 2013, the the People People filed filedan anIndictment Indictment charging the Defendant charging the the Defendant of the 3 following offenses: offenses: 4

5 1. Attempted Murder 1. Murder (As (As a First Degree Felony) First Degree Felony) 2. Guilt by Complicity to Commit Murder Degree Felony) First Degree (As a First Murder (As Felony) 6 3. First Degree Robbery Robbery (As Degree Felony) (As a First Degree Felony) 4. Aggravated Aggravated Assault (As Degree Felony) (As a Second Degree Felony) 7 5. Burglary (As Degree Felony) (As a Second Degree Felony) 8 8 7, 2013). Indictment (May 7, 9 Defendant's July Jury Selection Selection and and Trial began began on 18,2013. November18, on November OnJanuary 2013. On 17, January 17, 10

11 2014, the People 2014, the People filed filed an an Amended Amended Indictment Indictment charging Defendant of the Defendant charging the following the following of the

12 12 offenses: offenses: 13 13 1. Second Degree Robbery Degree Felony) (As a Second Degree Robbery (As Felony) 14 14 2. 2. Robbery (As Third Degree Robbery Degree Felony) (As a Third Degree Felony) 3. Burglary Degree Felony) (As a Second Degree Burglary (As Felony) 15 15 4. Theft (As Misdemeanor) (As aa Misdemeanor) 5. 5. Assault (As (As a Misdemeanor) Misdemeanor) 16

17 17 Amended Indictment Amended Indictment (Jan. (Jan. 17, 2014). 1 17, 2014).1

18 18 On January 22, 2014, January 22, 2014, the the jury jury found the Defendant guilty of Defendant guilty offenses: following offenses: the following of the 19 19 Second Degree Robbery Second Degree Robbery (As aa Second Second Degree Felony), Assault Degree Felony), (As aaMisdemeanor), Assault (As and Misdemeanor), and 20 (As aa Second Degree Felony). Burglary (As 21

On On March March 26, 26, 2014, hearing for sentencing hearing 2014, the Court held a sentencing Court Defendant. The Court for the Defendant. 22

23 sentenced theDefendant sentenced the Defendantotothe thefollowing: following:for for the offense of the offense Degree Robbery Second Degree of Second a Robbery (As a

24 24 Second Degree Felony), Felony), ten ten (10) (10) years (As aa Assault (As of Assault offense of the offense forthe imprisonment; for years imprisonment, Second Degree 25 25 Misdemeanor), one (1) Misdemeanor), one imprisonment; and (1) year imprisonment, forthe andfor offense of theoffense Burglary (As of Burglary Second (As aa Second 26

28 11 Subsequent Subsequenttotothe thefiling same the same on the Indictment on Amended Indictment Second Amended filed aa Second the People filed Indictment, the filing of the Amended Indictment, day. The Second Amended The Second Indictment did Amended Indictment notcontain did not materialor anymaterial contain any substantive changes orsubstantive to the changes to the charges against charges against

v. Mendiola People v. Criminal Case Case No. cF0218-13-02 CF0218-13-02 Decision Decision and and Order Denying Defendants Defendant's Motion Correct Illegal to Correct Motionto Sentence Illegal Sentence Page 10 Page 2 of 10 1 Degree Felony), Felony), ten ten (10) (10)years yearsimprisonment. 2014, filed 26, 2014, Judgment (Mar. 26, imprisonment. Judgment 19, 2014). filed Aug. 19, 2 Each Each sentence would run sentence would run consecutive eachother consecutiveeach for aa total otherfor twenty-one (21) total of twenty-one years (21) years 3 imprisonment at theDepartment at the ofC01Tections, Departmentof Mangilao. Id Corrections,Mangilao. Id 4 On May May 23, 23, 2014, 2014, the timely filed Defendant timely the Defendant Appeal challenging ofAppeal filed a Notice of his challenging his 55

6 conviction and seeking dismissal of all seeking dismissal charges. 2 On August all charges Supreme Guam Supreme the Guam 2015, the 20, 2015, August 20, 7 7 Court issued Court argued that the Court Defendant argued matter. The Defendant issued its Opinion Opinion and and Judgment Judgment on the matter. 8 erred in denying "[the Court] Dismiss; specifically, "[the denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, should have Court] should found have found 9 the delay that the constituted a violation delay in bringing him to trial constituted his speedy ofhis violation of trial rights speedy trial under both rights under 10 10

II the States Constitution the United States and applicable Constitution and Guam," and applicable Guam," appropriate remedy and "the appropriate such remedy for such

12 12 violation is to vacate vacate his convictions against him." and dismiss the charges against convictions and v. Mendiola, him."People v. 113 2015 2015 Guam ,i 1. Guam 26 'U 1. The Guam Judgment affirming issued its Judgment Supreme Court issued Guam Supreme Court's the Court's affirming the 14 14 containing the judgment containing Defendant's convictions. theDefendant's See Judgment convictions.See (Aug.20, Judgment (Aug. 2015). 3 20, 2015).3 15 15

On March 19, 19, 2018, SP0039-18,the in SP0039-18, 2018, in Defendantfiled theDefendant Petitionfor tiledaaPetition Writ of Habeas for Writ 16 16

117 7 Corpus (the "Petition"). Defendant sought TheDefendant "Petition"). The relief from sought relief imprisonment on the from imprisonment the following

18 18 grounds: grounds: 19 counsel failed to Defense counsel to investigate [and] discover investigate [and] the Amended discover the Indictment Amended Indictment 20 [Defendant's] Due violated [Defendant's] Process Rights, Due Process defense counsel Rights; defense failed to counsel failed suppress tosuppress the suggestive out of court phot array of plot array [the Defendant], of[the trial court's Defendant]; trial comments, court's comments, 21 during regarding [the unobj ective regarding and] unobjective bias [and] were bias trial, were during trial, Defendant's] [the Defendant's] Constitutional Constitutional Rights; Rights, and and all all in in violation violation of of the the Sixth Sixth [and] [and] Fourteenth Fourteenth 22 Amendment [sic] ofofthe Constitution." the U.S. Constitution." 23 23 Petition for Writ of I-Iabeas Petition for ,i 7 (Mar. 19, Habeas Corpus 1] 2020, before the September 30, 2020, On September 2018). On 19, 2018). 24 24

25 Anita A. Honorable Anita theCourt Sukola,the A.Sukola, heard oral Courtheard arguments from oral arguments the parties on the Defendant's from the

26 26

27 27

28 Second Amended errors. The Amended and Second the Defendant but only corrected clerical errors. Indictments were Amended Indictments filed prior were filed to counsels' closing closing arguments. arguments. 2 2 CRAI4-019. CRA14-019.

People v.v. Mendiola Criminal Case CF02\8-13-02 Case No. CF0218-13-02 Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to to Correct Correct Illegal Illegal Sentence Sentence Page Page 3 of 10 IO l Decision and Order issued its Decision Petion for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On October 9, 2020, the Court issued Potion 2 denying Defendant's Petition. See Decision and See Decision and Order Re: Petition for Writ Order Re: Habeas Corpus Writofof!-Iabeas 3 (Oct. (Oct. 9, 2020). 4 9, 2020>.4 4

On August 11, prose, filed, pro 11, 2022, the Defendant filed, [and] Correct Sentence [and] Se, a Motion to Correct 55

6 Request Request for Reduction Reduction in Sentence. December 5, Sentence. On December 2022, the 5, 2022, Defendant through the Defendant defense through defense

7 counsel, motioned the Court Court to appoint conflict-free counsel to the Defendant. See Motion for to appoint 8 Appointment Appointment of of Conflict Free Counsel Conflict Free (Dec. 5, Counsel (Dec. 2022). 5 On December 9, 2022, the People filed 5, 2022).5 9 an Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Defendant's Motion Correction or Reduction (the "Opposition"). for Sentence Correction 10 10

11 On December granted Defendant's Motion for Appointment and appointed 23, 2022, the Court granted December 23,

12 12 Defendant for Terrence E. Timblin to the Defendant for Motion for this matter. See Order for of Appointment of Mofionfor Appointment 13 13 Counsel (Dec. 23, 2022), see also 2022); see Notice of Court Appointed also Notice Counsel (Dec. 23, 2022). Appointed Counsel 14 14 On September 2023, the September 14, 2023, Defendant filed the Defendant Motion For filed aa Motion Leave to File Amended For Leave 15 15

16 November 21, Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. The Court granted the motion on November 2023. See 21, 2023. 16

17 17 Order Order Granting Motion to Defendant's Motion Granting Defendant's Leave to to Leave Motion to Amended Motion to File Amended Correct Illegal to Correct

18 Sentence (Nov. 21, 21, 2023). 19 On November 27, 2023, November 27, Defendant filed 2023, the Defendant the Motion filed the for this Motion for instant matter, and the this instant 20 People heir SSupplemental filed ttheir eople filed Opposition upplement l Opposit Defendant's ion to Defenda Motion nt Mot he "S"Supplemental ion (t(the upplement a 21

Opposition") on February 6, 2024. February 6, The Court 2024. The heard arguments Court heard on the arguments on Defendant's Motion on the Defendant's 22

25 25 33 In In brief, the Guam Supreme SupremeCourt despite his Defendant to trial despite the Defendant bringing the following: (1) the delay in bringing thefollowing: held the Court held 26 assertion assertion ofof speedy speedy trial trial was not not a violation violation ofof his speedy trial rights, and (2) dismissal his speedy convictions was not dismissal of his convictions appropriate appropriate because he he failed failed to to raise the the issue issuein in his original motion to dismiss. See his original Mendiola, 2015 Guam 26. See Mendiola, 27 44 In brief, the the Court Court held held that notwithstanding the that notwithstanding due to counsel due deficiency of counsel the deficiency issue of raise the issue to a failure to raise Amended Indictments, the Defendant Indictments, the failed its Defendant failed burden of its burden See Decision of proving prejudice. See and Order Decision and Re: Petition Order Re: Petition 28 for Corpus (Oct, of Habeas Corpus Writof]-Iabeas for Writ (Oct. 9, 2020). 2020). 55 Attorney Attorney Willam Willam B. B. Pole attorney of record for Pole was the attorney tiled the motion on behalf and filed trial and for Defendant during the trial of of the Defendant.

v. Mendiola People v. Mendiola Criminal Case No. CF02 Case No. \ 8-13-02 CF02 i8-13-02 Decision and Decision Order Denying Defendant's and Order Motion to Defendant's Motion Correct Illegal to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence Page 4 of 10 of 10 1 February 7, 2024. 2024. On On March March 11, 11, 2024, 2024, the to the Reply to his Reply filed his Defendant filed the Defendant People's Opposition the People's 2 2 to Defendant's Motion. 3 DISCUSSION 4

5 1. The Defendant Defendant failed failed to to raise raise the the issue his illegal of his issue of sentencing during his direct illegal sentencing appeal to the Guam Supreme Court Court andand his habeas petition. his habeas 6 T he People People argue in their argue in Opposition that the Defendant their Opposition forfeited his Defendant has forfeited of claim of his claim 7

88 illegal sentencing sentencing because because he he failed to raise failed to direct appeal and in his habeas corpus raise that issue on direct

9 2022). The People Opposition at p. 1 (Dec. 9, 2022). petition. People's agrees with The Court agrees the People. with the

10 IO People v. Tedtaotao, instructive here.66 In Tedtootao, 12, is instructive Tedtaotao, 2017 Guam 12, Tedtaotao, the Appellant II Attempted Murder (hereinafter "Tedtaotao") was indicted on the following offenses: Attempted (As aa First Murder (As 12 12

First Degree Felony), Aggravated Assault (As aa Degree Felony), First Degree Robbery (As a First 13 13

14 14 Second Degree Felony), Second Degree Burglary (As a Second Felony), and Burglary Felony). Tedtaotao Degree Felony). jury Tedtaotao 11 3. A jury

15 15 found Tedtaotao guilty on all counts alleged in the indictment and was subsequently sentenced 16 16 ¢ I 1 / to he imprisonment. Id lifeimprisonment. 13. Id.'ll 3. The term reduced term to aa reduced sponte resentenced Tedtaotao to sua sponge trial court sue The trlal 17 17 of years. Id. fifty-five (55) years. of fifty-Eve People appealed Id The People the resentencing, but the Guam Supreme Court appealed the 18 18 19 i nned. Id.d 1 3. affirmed. 19

20 Tedtaotao filed a separate appeal on separate appeal the resentencing on the based on resentencing based the following claims: His on the

21 failed to attempted murder failed conviction of attempted conviction insufficient to was insufficient evidence was offense; the evidence to allege an offense, 22 . u 1 / . convlct of attempted offense of convict on the offense murder; the attempted murder, trial court the trlal instructing the jury on the court erred in Instructing 23 ttempted murder attempted cha r ge, Tedtaotao's mur der charge; r ight to edta ota o's right speedy trial to speedy ted, and ia l wass violated; People nd the People 24

25 committed a Brady violation. vio1ation.77 Id.Id 1'H4.4.The reversed and Court reversed Supreme Court Guam Supreme The Guam vacated the and vacated

27 27 66 ItIt isis worthy worthy of of note (CF0218-13-01) are of matter (CF0218-13-0l) this matter in this charges in the charges that the note that of the same facts the same of this facts and circumstances of 28 matter (CF02 instant matter l (CF0218-13-02). 71 Brady Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In Brady, the United States Supreme Court v, Maryland, Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of of evidence favorable to an accused upon request upon request violates due process where the evidence is

v. Mendiola People v. Mendiola Criminal Case No. CF0218-13-02 Case No. CF02l8-13-02 Decision Decision and and Order Order Denying Denying Defendant's Motion to Defendant's Motion Correct Illegal to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence Page Page 5 of 10 of 10 1 attempted murder conviction, upheld the remaining remaining convictions, case. Id. the case. remanded the and remanded convictions, and , Id. 1]4. 2 forty-Eve (45) years to be served On remand, the trial court resentenced Tedtaotao to a total of forty-five 3 consecutively and dismissed consecutively and attempted murder the attempted dismissed the charge -- again, murder charge Tedtaotao appealed again, Tedtaotao this appealed this 4

5 resentencing. Id. resentencing. , Id 1]4.

6 In this latest latest appeal, appeal, Tedtaotao trial court argued that "the trial Tedtaotao argued erred in admitting court erred certain admitting certain

7 7 trial in violation of GRE during trial video evidence during 403 and GRE 403 802 and and 802 that he and that denied effective he was denied effective 8 assistance of counsel." Id. 116. , disagreed. "It However, the court disagreed. well-settled 'that where an "It is well-settled 9 argument could have argument could an initial raised on an have been raised appeal, itit isis inappropriate initial appeal, to consider inappropriate to that consider that 10

11 following remand.'" argument on a second appeal following , 7(internal Id.117 remand." Id quotation omitted) (internal quotation (quoting omitted) (quoting

12 12 Nw. Ind. Nw. Ind Tel. Tel. Co. Co. v. FCC, v. FC. F.2d 465, 872 F.2d C., 872 1989)). "The rationale for this rule is 465,470 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). 13 13 understanding that '[t]he premised upon an understanding most rudimentary '[t]he most procedural efficiency demands rudimentary procedural 14 14 that litigants present all available arguments to present all an appellate to an court on the appellate court first appeal." the first Id.11, 77 appeal."'Id. 15 15

16 (quoting Omni Outdoor Outdoor Advert., Inc., 974 F.2d Advert., Inc., 502, 505 F.2d 502, (4th Cir. 505 (4th 1992). Tedtaotao Cir. 1992). further Tedtaotao further 16

17 17 argued that because he was resentenced, the trial court implicitly entered a new judgment. The

18 18 court disagreed. 19 19 It does not follow that because [a convicted because [a defendant] appealed one aspect of convicted defendant] of 20 the sentence, they preserved every other objection for review on remand. In fact, objected in because they had already objected [trial] court on those very grounds, they in the [trial] 21 appeal the sentence on those grounds as opportunity to appeal and opportunity had every incentive and well. Because they did not, the arguments are waived. 22

23 23 Id. 11 , 15 (quoting States v.v. Griffith, United States (quoting United 607, 610 F.3d 607, Grwith, 522 F.3d (5th Cir. 610 (5th 2008)). The Cir. 2008)). court The court

24 24 issues that appeal issues direct appeal "Tedtaotao waived for direct because "Tedtaotao judgment because court's judgment affirmed the trial court's affirmed 25 25 could have been but were not raided in his initial appeal." Id initial appeal." Id. 1], 16. 26

28 28 material either to guilt guilt or punishment, irrespective to punishment, or to of the good faith irrespective of or bad faith of faith or the prosecution." 373 ofthe at 373 U.S. at 87. 87.

People v. v. Mendiola Mendio/a Criminal Case No. CF02 Case No. I 8-13-02 CF0218-l3-02 Decision and Order Denying Defendant"s Order Denying Motionto Defendants Motion Correct Illegal to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence Page 6 of Page 10 of 10 I The facts his appealed his initially appealed Defendant initially case. Defendant this case. in this similar in are similar facts in in Tedtaotao Tedtaotao are 2 2 conviction conviction to to the the Guam Guam Supreme Court and Supreme Court subsequently on his and subsequently habeas corpus his habeas petition. His corpus petition. 3 appeal and his habeas habeas corpus brings his denied. Now, the Defendant brings corpus were both denied. Motion before his Motion 4 4

5 this Court on the the issues that relate issues that back to relate back the original to the case that this case original conviction in this not that were not 5

6 6 brought up on appeal brought up and the appeal and the petition. the Defendant's claims that the petition. The Court finds that his claims in his

7 7 Motion habeas and habeas appeal and initial appeal his initial in his claims in those claims bring those Motion are are waived waived because because he failed failed to to bring 8 corpus corpus petition. 9 2. The The sentence imposed by sentence imposed by this this Court was appropriatebecause was legal and appropriate the conduct because the 10 10 involved separate offenses and burglary. offenses of robbery and burglary. of robbery 11 8 8 GCA GCA §§120.46 120.46 provides provides the the Court's Court's authority authority to to correct correct an an illegal illegal sentence sentence at at any any 12 12

time. It reads asfollows: reads as follows: 13 13

14 The court correct an court may correct an illegal sentence at illegalsentence any time at any and may correct time and sentence correct aa sentence manner within the time provided herein for imposed in an illegal manner for the reduction the reduction 15 of ofsentence. sentence. The may reduce court may The court sentence within one hundred reduce aa sentence twenty (120) hundred twenty (120) days after the sentence imposed, or within one sentence is imposed, hundred twenty one hundred twenty (120) days days 16 after receipt receipt by the court by the ofaamandate court of issued upon affirmance mandate issued the judgment of the affirmance of 17 17 or dismissal dismissal of appeal, or within the appeal, of the one hundred within one twenty (120) days hundred twenty entry days after entry of of any any order order or Supreme Court or judgment of the Supreme of Guam, Court of having the Guam, having effect of the effect 18 18 judgmentof upholding a judgment upholding of conviction. conviction. 19 8 GCA §§ 120.46. 8 GCA 120.46. 20 20 argues "that The Defendant argues he may "that he only be may only one of be convicted of only one the most ofthe serious most serious 21

Charges [sic], [sic], Robbery Robbery or orBurglary, asthey Burglary,as amount to theyamount continuing course to aa continuing ofconduct course of and the conduct and 22

23 23 course of ofconduct conduct was was uninterrupted. at p. Defendant's Mot. at uninterrupted. Defendants 2. The p. 2. Defendant argues The Defendant that the argues that

24 24 conviction conviction of of both both robbery robbery and and burglary are inconsistent burglary are inconsistentwith with99 GCA GCA §§ 1.22(e) 1.22(e) because because the the 25 25 charges are based upon uponthe courseof samecourse thesame conduct.The of conduct. statutereads The statute asfollows: readsas follows: 26 26 When the same defendant may conduct of aa defendant same conduct establish the may establish commission of the commission of more 27 27 than may be prosecuted defendant may one offense, the defendant than one for each such prosecuted for offense. He such offense. 28 may not, thanone not, however, be convicted of more than offense if: oneoffense if:

People v. Mendiola People Criminal Case Criminal No.CF02l8-l3-02 CaseNo. CF02l8-l3-02 Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion Decision and Sentence Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence . Page 7 of 10 of 10 l (a) (a) one one offense offense isis included included inin the the other other as as defined defined in § 105.58 105.58 of the the Procedure Code; Criminal Procedure Code, 2 (b) one one offense offenseconsists consists only conspiracy or ofaaconspiracy only of or other form of other form preparation ofpreparation 3 to commit commit the other, (c) c) inconsistent inconsistent findings findings of offact required to arerequired factare establish the to establish commission the commission 4 of the offenses; of offenses, 5 (d) (d) the the offenses offenses differ differonly onlyininthat defined to one isis defined thatone to prohibit designated prohibit aa designated kind of conduct of conduct generally and the and the other to to prohibit a specific instance instance of 6 conduct, or such conduct; (e) the offense is defined the offense continuing course defined as a continuing conduct and the course of conduct 7 unless the law defendant's course of defendant's course uninterrupted, unless conduct was uninterrupted, of conduct 8 specific periods provides that specific of such periods of conduct constitute such conduct separate constitute separate offenses. 9 9 GCA 1.22(e) added). (emphasis added). 1.22(e) (emphasis 10 10

11 When interpreting meaning of the meaning interpreting the "court must statute, aa "court of a statute, look first mustlook to the first to language of the language of

12 12 the statute statute itself." itomo Constr. itself." Sumitomo v. Gov't't of Co. v. Constr. Co. 2001 Guam 23 Guam, 2001 QfGuam, 23, 17."In 1117. looking at "In looking

13 13 the statute's language, the statute's language, the court's court's task is to task is statutory language is to determine whether or not the statutory 14 14 plain and and unambiguous." unambiguous." Aguon v. v. Gutierrez, 14 1] Gutierrez, 2002 Guam 14 (internal quotation , 6 (internal marks quotation marks 15 15 16 omitted) Robinson v.v. Shell omitted) (quoting Robinson 519 U.S. 337, Shell Oil Co., 519 340 (1997)). 337, 340 This 'plain (1997)) This meaning 'plain meaning 16

17 17 the sentencing to the applied to been applied has been rule' has inGuam lawsin sentencing laws bythe Guamby Guam Supreme theGuam Court inPeople Supreme Count v. People v.

18 18 Angoco: "[t]he "[t]heplain plainmeaning that 'if interpretation provides that statutory interpretation forstatutory rule for meaning rule language of a 'if the language 19 19 statute statute isis clear clear and and there there is is no ambiguity, then no ambiguity, there is no then there language by 'interpret' the language no need to 'interpret' 20 20 resorting history or other to legislative history resorting to extrinsic aids.'" other extrinsic Guam 10 1998 Guam aide."' People v. Angoco, 1998 , 5 10 1] 21

22 (quoting Church ofScientolog;v Dept.of ofScientology v.v. US Dept. Justice, 612 F.2d 417,421 ofJuslice, (9th Cir. 421 (9th Cir. 1979). 22

23 The Defendant was convicted Defendant was of Second convictedof Degree Robbery Second Degree (As a Second Robbery (As Degree Felony) Second Degree Felony)

24 24 and Burglary (As (As aa Second the language of the the language toward the looks toward Court looks The Court Felony). The Degree Felony). Second Degree and Burglary 25 statutes concerning statutes robbery and concerningrobbery burglary. The and burglary. defines "second statute defines The statute degree robbery" "second degree as robbery" as 26 26 follows: follows: 27

28 (a) AAperson guilty ofofrobbery person isis guilty in the robbery in second degree the second in the degree if, in course of the course committing he:: theft, he committing aa theft,

v. Mendiola People v. Criminal Case No. Criminal Case CF0218-13-02 No. CF0218-13-02 Decision Decision and and Order Order Denying Motion to Defendant's Motion Denying Defendant's Correct Illegal to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence 10 Page 8 of 10 1 (1) inflicts serious serious bodily injury upon another; or bodily injury (2) threatens threatens another with or intentionally him in fear of immediate puts him intentionally puts 2 injury; or serious bodily injury, 3 (3) is is armed armed with with or or displays displays what to be explosives or a deadly appears to what appears weapon. weapon. "Deadly "Deadly Weapon" Weapon" has has the the meaning meaning provided provided by by§ 16. 16.10. 4

5 99 GCA GCA §§ 40.20 40.20 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). The The statute defines "burglary" statute defines "burglary" as follows: follows:

6 (a) A person person is guilty ofof burglary remains in surreptitiously remains burglary if he enters or surreptitiously any habitable building, or aa separately habitable property, building, secured or separately secured occupied or occupied 7 School as portion thereof, thereof, or ifif he he enters enters or surreptitiously remains or surreptitiously in any remains in any School 8 defined in § defined in § 37.l0(e) 37.10(e) ofofthis this Chapter, intent to commit a crime therein, Chapter, with intent unless the premises are are atat the open to the public or the the time open is licensed the defendant is 9 or privileged toenter. privileged to .. enter... 10 10 9 GCA 37.20(a) (emphasis added). 11 The Court disagrees that Court disagrees and burglary, robbery and that robbery as defined burglary, as by statute, defined by constitute a statute, constitute 12 12 continuing Rather, these conduct. Rather, course of conduct. continuing course offenses are separatee offenses these two offenses c because the 13 13

14 14 proof of the the elements do not robbery do elements of robbery merge with the proof of the not merge elements of burglary. See the elements

15 15 People v. Aidan, People v. Aldan, 2022 ~ 30 Guam 4 11 2022 Guam that conduct that prosecuted for conduct be prosecuted may be defendant may 30 ("A defendant 16 1 , v , constitutes more than one offense, but he offense, but may not be convicted of more that one offense if he may one If one 17 offense is included offense is see also another"); see included in another"), United States also United v. Cedar, States v. F.2d 1033, Cedar, 437 F.2d 1036 1033, 1036 18

19 ("[O]ffenses merge only when of the proof of when proof of the the elements of one necessarily establishes all of 19

20 20 elements of of the lesserororincluded the lesser offense.... includedoffense ....").

21 Under Under 99 GCA GCA §§ 40.20, 40.20, aadefendant defendant commits commits robbery robbery "if, "if, in in the the course course of of committing committing 22 22 injliets serious bodily harm." (emphasis added). theft, he inflicts In contrast, added). In contrast, under under99 GCA GCA §§ 37.20(a), 37.20(a), 23 a defendant burglary "if commits burglary defendant commits enters or "if he enters surreptitiously remains or surreptitiously in any remains in habitable any habitable 24 24

25 25 properLy...with property ... t o commit the intent to r e i n ." (emphasis added). Robbery requires the c mmi a crime ttherein."

26 26 c o off bodily harm, whereas burglary requires the entering infliction r rremaining n t r i n g oor n any habitable e m a i n i n g iin

27 the property. Based on this rationale, robbery within the 27 intent to commit a crime within property with the intent 28

Mendiola People v. Me ndiola No. CF0218-13-02 Criminal Case No. CF02i8-l3-02 Decision Decision and and Order Order Denying Motion to Defendant's Motion Denying Defendant's Correct Illegal to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence Page 9 of 10 of 10 I and burglary because the cannot merge because burglary cannot elements of the elements not necessary are not of robbery are establish the necessary to establish 2 elements of burglary. 3 Turning question, the Turning to the incident in question, elements of the elements satisfied when burglary were satisfied of burglary the when the 4

5 into the forcea' his way into Defendant forced premises with the premises elements of with the intent to commit a crime. The elements of 5

6 6 robbery Defendant inflicted the Defendant robbery were satisfied when the serious bodily inflicted serious harm to bodily harm the victim in to the the in the

7 Defendant inflicted the Defendant that the fact that The fact home. The the home. from the belongings from 7 course course of taking the victim's taking the victim's belongings 8 serious harm is not aa required serious bodily harm the offense element of the required element ofburglary offense of and neither burglary and the neither is the 9

Defendant's forcible Defendant's into the entry into forcible entry home a required the home element of required element offense of the offense of the robbery. of robbery. 10 10

lIIl Therefore, the Therefore, contained in Defendant's the offenses contained conviction do Defendant's conviction not constitute do not continuing constitute aa continuing

12 12 course course of conduct separate offense, but of separate conduct but the offenses and the offense, and of robbery offenses of and burglary robbery and not burglary do not 13 13 merge. 14 14 CONCLUSION 15

As As this Court finds this Court that the finds that sentence imposed the sentence pursuant to imposed pursuant sentencing was to Defendant's sentencing 16 16

17 17 legal legal and and permissible statutory mandates, withinstatutory permissible within S HHEREBY mandates, IT IIS R D ER ED that ER EBY OORDERED

18 is Sentence is DENIED. Illegal Sentence Correct Illegal to Correct Motion to Defendant's Motion 19

20 03 292% SO ORDERED this - - - - - - - ORDERED this 21

22 \

23 HONORABLE MARIA MARI-('\ T. CENZON CENZON 24 Judge, SupéHor.Court of Guam Judge, Superior.Court Guam 25

People Mendiola People v. Mefzdiola Criminal Case No. CF0218-13-02 Case No. CF0218-l3-02 Decision and Order OrderDenying Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionto to Correct Sentence Illegal Sentence Correct Illegal Page 10 of 10 Page 10