People v. Meno

Opinion

IL? D

COURT

1 'QFGUAM 2 ZUZSUCT 18 PM was

3 CLERK UF crauar

4

5 BY: /RLT) l

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 8 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0249-22

9 vs.

DECISION AND ORDER

10

11 VILANI MARIE MENO, 12 Defendant. 13 INTRODUCTION

14 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant VILANI MARIE 15

MENO's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause ("Motion to Dismiss").

16 Present were Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shuck on behalf of the People of Guam ("the 17 Government") and Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender William Bischoff. Having 18 reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues.the 19 following Decision and Order.

20

BACKGROUND

21 On May 9, 2022, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1) Theft by 22 Receiving (As a Second Degree Felony) and (2) Vehicle Without Identification (As a 23 Misdemeanor). (Indictment, May 9, 2022). These charges stem from allegations that Defendant 24 was in possession of a stolen vehicle without a license plate. (Decl. of Matthew M. Shuck, 25 Magistrate's Con pl., Apr. 20, 2022).

26 On August 16, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion. The matter was held in abeyance 27 pending the return of a Warrant of Arrest issued for Defendant's arrest after the filing of a Third 28

People v. Memo Case No. CF0249-22 Decision and Order

Page 1 of 4

1 Violation Report on July 5, 2022 and a Fourth Violation Report on August 10, 2022. See Warrant 2 of Arrest, Aug. 24, 2022. 3 On September 6, 2023, Defendant was arrested pursuant to the Warrant. See Return of 4 Warrant Service, Sep. 6, 2023. 5 On S ept ember 7, 2023, a t t he R et ur n of Wa r r a nt Hea r ing, t he C our t or der ed t he 6 Government to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and indicated the matter would be further 7 addressed at the following hearing. Later that day the Government filed its Opposition. 8 On September 15, 2023, the Court placed the matter under advisement without further 9 argument from the parties. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the First Charge of Theft by Receiving (As a 12 Second Degree Felony) because no probable cause exists to support the charge as required under 13 8 G.C.A. § 15.20. (Mot. Dismiss at 2). Defendant sets forth that "there is no allegation that Ms. 14 Meno knew that the Nissan Frontier was stolen, or that she believed it had probably been stolen. 15 It is only alleged that Ms. Memo knew and believed that she was using a Nissan Frontier that her 16 part Felix Gogue had borrowed from his friend." Id at 3. The Government opposes, setting forth 17 facts that it believes support the charge. See generally, Opp'n, Aug. 7, 2023 . 18 Section 15.20 is titled "Issuance of Summons or Warrant on Complaint" and provides in 19 relevant part that:

20 If it appears from the complaint and the affidavits filed therewith that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant 21 has committed it, the judge shall issue a summons for the appearance of the 22 defendant. 23 8 G.C.A. § l5.20(a). This section is inapplicable here as at this stage in the proceedings, a grand 24 jury returned an indictment on May 9, 2022 charging Defendant with one second degree felony 25 and a misdemeanor. "Any felony together with any related misdemeanor shall be prosecuted by 26 indictment, or, if indictment is waived, or a preliminary hearing held and an order issued holding 27 the defendant to answer under § 45.80 of this Code, it may be prosecuted by indictment or by 28 information. Any other offense shall be prosecuted by complaint." 8 G.C.A. § 1.15. An

People v. Memo Case No. CF0249-22 Decision and Order

Page 2 of 4

l indictment "shall contain a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts 2 constituting the offense charged, and shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney." 8 G.C.A. § 3 55.10. An indictment is sufficient if "it contains the elements of the crime charged, adequately 4 informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the charges, and is stated with 5 sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense." People v. Jones, 2006 6 Guam 13 1112 (citing Peoplev. Salas, 2000 Guam 2 1119). The "grand jury serves a gatekeeping 7 function by considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support an indictment." Peoplev. San 8 Nicolas, 2013 Guam 21 1121 (citation omitted). A "Grand Jury shall find an indictment when 9 from the evidence presented there is reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offense has 10 been committed and that the defendant committed it." 8 G.C.A. §50.54(b). See also San Nicolai, 11 2013 Guam 21 ii 10 ("An indictment will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if 12 there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and 13 the accused is guilty of it."). "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand 14 jury, ... if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." United States 15 v. Costello, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956). 16 At this time, the Court finds that Defendant was indicted by a legally constituted and 17 unbiased grand jury which found probable cause to charge Defendant with the offenses in the 18 Indictment. Defendant does not allege that the Indictment is deficient or that the grand jury 19 received incompetent evidence. See, Ag., San Nicolai, 2013 Guam 21 11 14 (failure of an 20 indictment to sufficiently state an offense is a fundamental defect that can be raised at any time), 21 People v. Quidachay, 815 F.2d 1311, 1313 (9th Cir. 1987) ("if sufficient competent evidence to 22 support the verdict was not received, then the indictment is void. Thus, the defendant can 23 challenge the sufficiency of the indictment to determine if 'competent evidence' supports it"). 24 Instead, Defendant cites to the Declaration attached to the Magistrate's Complaint to argue that 25 no probable cause exists pursuant to 8 G.C.A. § l5.20(a). See Mot. Dismiss at 1. Therefore, the 26 Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

27 // 28 //

People v. Menu Case No. CF0249-22 Decision and Order

Page 3 off

1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 3 Parties shall return for a Status Hearing on November 7, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2023 .

5

6

7 HONORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ 8 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 9

10

11 12 13

14 15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

People v. Memo Case No. CF0249-22 Decision and Order

Page 4 off