People v. Mendiola

Superior Court of Guam·Decided May 17, 2024·No. CF0240-23·Unknown

Opinion

t=·2q s C [\ \ 1 LLV SUPERIOF,; COURT SUPERIO .. GF GUAM OFGéiééik/E

202~ HAY V? 2921, 17 PH PM 5: 30 1

CLERK GF CLERK COURT · Of GGURT 2

3 BY:u:Jij) as.*

5 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE PEOPLE OF OFGUAl\/I, GUAM, )) CRIMINAL CASENO. CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0240-23 8 )) )) 9 vs. )) 110 )) DECISION AND ORDER RE. ALBERT PORTUSACH MENDIOLA, JR. ) MENDIOLA, JR. MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITHDRAW 11 AJ Mendiola, aka AJ ) AS COUNSEL COUNSEL AND DOB: 12/03/1982 DOB:12/03/1982 ) NEW COUNSEL APPOINTING NEW 12 1 )) Defendant. )) 13 13 _________ ______ ) ) 14 14

INTRODUCTION 15

16 This matter is the Honorable before the is before JudgeMaria Honorable Judge T. Cenzon MariaT. onAttorney Cenzon on Jennifer Davis's Attorney Jennifer Davis's

17 17 Motion Motion to to Withdraw Withdraw as as Counsel Counsel for Defendant Albert Portusach for Defendant Mendiola, Jr. Portusach Mendiola, (the"Motion") Jr.(the "Motion")

18 18 filed on April 1, 1, 2024. The was necessary and took the Court determined that no oral argument was The Court 19 matter underadvisement matter under advisementpursuant to CVR pursuant 7.l(e)(6)(D) to CVR of ofthetheLOCAL 7.1(e)(6)(D) RULES OF LOCALRULES OF THE 20 SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURTOF OFGUAM GUAMand AdministrativeRule andAdministrative No.06-001. RuleNo. Afterconsidering 06-001. After the considering the 21 2

22 22 pleadings on file and after reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the Court now issues

23 23 this and Order this Decision and Order DENYING theMotion DENYING the Motionfor reasons set thereasons forthe forth in setforth the pleading, in the but pleading, but 24 24 GRANTING the Motion Motion on legal grounds on legal different from grounds different that which from that theMotion. which was advanced in the Motion. 25 25

27 27 People of ofGuam vs. vs. Albert Mendiola, Jr. Porfusach Mendiola, Albert Portusach 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0240-23 No. CF0240-23 Decision Decision and Defense Counsel's re. Defense and Order re. Motion to Withdraw Counsel's Motion Page of8 Page Il of F5CTU_AL FACTUAL&_PROC1;DUR,Ag & PROCEDURAL BACK_KGROU_ND BACKGROUND 1

2 The Defendant is charged Defendant is charged with with the the following Possession of offenses: 1) Possession following offenses: Schedule II of a Schedule

3 Controlled Substance withIntent Substance with IntenttotoDeliver Deliver(As Possession of aa and 2) Possession (As a First Degree Felony) and 4 Schedule II Controlled Substance Schedule II (As aa Third Substance (As 18, 2023). Degree Felony). See Indictment (April 18, Third Degree 5 Attorney Davis Attorney Davis was was appointed appointed to represent Defendant on March 20, to represent 2024,after 20, 2024, Attorney Cynthia afterAttorney 6 7 Ecube Ecube was permitted permitted to to withdraw withdraw due due totoethical ethicalconsiderations precluding her considerations precluding continued her continued 7

8 appointment. appointment. Order re. re. Motion Motion to to Withdraw CourtAppointed as Court Withdraw as Counsel (Feb. 27, AppointedCounsel See 2024). See 27, 2024).

9 9 Nth. (March 20, 2024). Ntc. of ofCourt Court Appointed Appointed Counsel Counsel (March 10 Attorney Davis filed Attorney filed the the instant instant Motion on on the the grounds unavailability as grounds of unavailability as as well as 11 incompetence incompetence inin the the area area of criminal criminal law. law. Motion at at 2-4. cited several Davis cited 2-4. Davis off-island several off-island 12 12

13 13 conferences conferences and and prior prior work work commitments commitments through through August, August, 2024. She also 2024. She argues that she "has no also argues

14 14 prior experience experience relating relating to to criminal criminal court" court"and andcannot cannot provide providecompetent competent representation as representation as 15 15 required required under GRPC GRPC 1. 1.1. .Attorney Attorney Davis has not not indicated whether she has hasdiscussed thisMotion discussedthis Motion 16 16 with with the Defendant. 17 17 LEQAL NALYSIS LEGAL ANALYSIS 18 18

19 Rule 1.16 1.16 of ofthe the Guam Guam Rules Rules ofofProfessional ProfessionalConduct Conduct dictates when counsel dictates when may counsel may

20 20 withdraw from representation of of a client client and andprovides provides as asfollows: follows: 21 21 Rule 1.16: 1.16: Declining or or Terminating of ofRepresentation Representation 22 (a) (a) Except Exceptasas stated stated in in paragraph (c), (c), a lawyer lawyer shall not represent a client or, where shall not 23 23 representation hashas commenced, commenced, shallshallwithdraw withdraw from from the the representation representationofof a client if: 24 (1) the the representation will result representation will result in violation of of the the rules professional ofprofessional rules of 25 25 conduct or other law;law, (2) the the lawyer's lawyer'sphysical physical orormental mentalcondition condition materially the impairs the materially impairs 26 lawyer's lawyer's ability abilityto to represent represent the client; client, or 27 27 People of of Guam vs. Portusach Mendiola, Albert Portusach vs. Albert Mendiola, Jr. 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0240-23 CF0240-23 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defense Motion to Withdraw Counsel's Motion Defense Counsel's Page Page 2 of8 (3) (3) the the lawyer lawyer is is discharged. discharged. I

2 (b) except except asas stated stated in in paragraph lawyer may paragraph ((e), a lawyer withdraw from may withdraw representing a from representing client if: if: 3 3 (l) (1)withdrawal withdrawalcan canbebeaccomplished accomplished without without material adverse effect material adverse on the effect on interests of the client 4 (2) the the client client persists course of persists in a course of action involving the action involving the lawyer's services lawyer's services 5 that the the lawyer reasonably believes lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or is criminal fraudulent; or fraudulent, (3) (3) the the client clienthas has used the lawyer's used the lawyer's services services to to perpetrate fraud; perpetrate a crime or fraud, 6 (4) the client insists upon taking action (4) the client insists upon taking action that that the lawyer considers lawyer considers repugnant repugnant 7 7 or or with with which which the the lawyer has aa fundamental lawyerhas disagreement; fundamental disagreement, (5) the the client client fails fails substantially substantially to to fulfill fulfill anan obligation obligation to the lawyer the lawyer 8 regarding the lawyer's lawyer'sservices servicesandandhas has been been given given reasonable that warning that reasonable warning the lawyer will withdraw unless the withdraw unless obligationisisfulfilled; the obligation fulfilled, 9 (6) 6)the the representation representation will resultininan willresult unreasonable financial burden anunreasonable burden on the IO 10 lawyer lawyer or or has has been rendered difficult by unreasonablydifficult rendered unreasonably the client; by the client, or (7) (7) other other good good cause cause for withdrawal exists. 11 (c) c) AAlawyer lawyermust mustcomply complywith withapplicable applicable law law requiring requiring notice or permission of notice to or 12 12 a tribunal representation. When ordered to do so by aa tribunal, terminating a representation. tribunal when terminating 13 13 a lawyer lawyer shall shall continue continue representation notwithstanding cause for terminating notwithstanding good cause the representation. representation. 14 14

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Mendiola, (superctguam 2024).

People v. Mendiola (People v. Mendiola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morris v. Slappy
461 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Carl Dexter Moore
159 F.3d 1154 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)