People v. Nego

Superior Court of Guam·Decided February 10, 2022·No. CF0014-19·Unknown

Opinion

FILED SUPERIOR COURT OFGUAM

1 2022 FE8 10 PH 1o=3l CLERK UF COURT 2

3 EY!

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4

5 Criminal Case No. CF0014-19 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 6 vs.

7 JOHN DANIEL NEGO, DECISION AND ORDER (Motion for Sentence Reduction) DOB: 08/20/1987 8 Defendant.

10 INTRODUCTION

11 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on January 6, 2022 upon the

12 Motion for Sentence Reduction filed by Defendant John Daniel Nego ("Defendant").

13 Defendant was represented at the hearing by Assistant Public Defender Zachary Taimanglo.

14 Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio represented the People of Guam ("the People").

15 Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the

16 Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction.

17 BACKGROUND

18 Defendant was originally charged on January 17, 2019 with Theft of a Motor Vehicle

19 by Deception (as a Second Degree Felony), Forgery (as a Third Degree Felony), Impersonation

20 (as a Third Degree Felony), two counts of Terroristic Conduct (as a Third Degree Felony), two

21 counts of Attempted Violation of a Court Order (as a Misdemeanor), Theft by Deception (as a

22 Misdemeanor), and Theft of Property (as a Misdemeanor). Following a jury trial, Defendant

23 was found guilty of the following crimes and sentenced as follows:

Page 1 of 5 1 a) For the conviction of Theft of a Motor Vehicle by Deception (as a Second Degree Felony), Defendant was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment at the Department of 2 Corrections, b) For the conviction of Forgery (as a Third Degree Felony), Defendant was sentenced to 3 five (5) years imprisonment, to run concurrent with the above sentence, c) For the conviction of Impersonation (as a Third Degree Felony), Defendant was 4 sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment, to run concurrent with the above sentences, d) For the conviction of Terroristic Conduct (as a Third Degree Felony), Defendant was 5 sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence imposed for the conviction of Theft of a Motor Vehicle above, 6 e) For the conviction of two counts of Attempted Violation of a Court Order (as a Misdemeanor), Defendant was sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment for each count, 7 to run concurrent with the above sentences,

8 See Judgment at 2 (Jul. 9, 2019). Altogether, Defendant was sentenced to serve ten (10) years

9 of imprisonment and a three (3) year special parole term. Id.

10 Defendant subsequently appealed this case to the Supreme Court of Guam. The

Supreme Court issued its Opinion affirming the Defendant's judgment of conviction on May

12 25, 2021.People v. Nero, 2021 Guam 3 1] 34. The Supreme Court Mandate was filed with the

13 Court on June 16, 2021. Defendant timely filed the Motion for Sentence Reduction on

14 September 17, 2021. The People filed an Opposition on September 30, 202 l. A motion hearing

15 was held on January 6, 2022, after which this matter was taken under advisement.

16 DISCUSSION

17 Defendant brings this motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 8 GCA § 120.46. This

18 statute provides:

19 The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of 20 sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within one hundred twenty (120) days after the sentence is imposed, or within one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt by the 21 court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of any order or judgment of the 22 Supreme Court of Guam, having the effect of upholding a judgment of conviction.

23 See 8 G.C.A. § 120.46. Title 9 GCA § 80.60(b) sets out the standards for imposing or

24 withholding probation in lieu of imprisonment:

Page 2 of 5 1 [T]he court shall not suspend imposition of sentence or place an offender on probation if, having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, 2 character and condition of the offender, the court finds that imprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public because: 3 (1) there is undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the offender would commit another crime, 4 (2) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by commitment to an institution, or 5 (3) a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the offender's crime.

6 9G.C.A.§80.60(b).

7 The Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence for the reasons

8 set forth below.

9 1. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BECAUSE THE TEN-YEAR SENTENCE IS LEGAL AND 10 WITHIN THE RANGE PERMITTED BY GUAM LAW.

11 Guam law provides that the maximum sentence for each felony conviction in this case

12 is five years, while the maximum sentence for the misdemeanor charge is one year. For

13 example, Theft (as a Second Degree Felony) is punishable by a maximum of five years when a

14 defendant has not previously been convicted of a felony or an offense constituting theft. See 9

15 GCA § 43.20(a). Forgery (as a Third Degree Felony) is punishable by a maximum of five years

16 under the general language of 9 GCA § 80.30(c). The Court also may impose a sentence of not

17 more than five years for Impersonation (as a Third Degree Felony). See 9 GCA §§46.80(c) and

18 80.30(c). Terroristic Conduct (As a Third Degree Felony) is similarly punishable by a

19 maximum of five years. 9 GCA §§ l9.50(b) and 80.30(c). Finally, an Attempted Violation of a

20 Court Order is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year. 9 GCA §§ 30.40(a) and

21 13.10. Here, the Defendant was sentenced within the statutorily permitted range for each

22 charge. See Judgment. Thus, because the sentence falls within the statutory guidelines and is

23 legal under Guam law, any reduction of the sentence is based on the Courl's discretion.

Page 3 of 5 1 11. THE COURT DENIES THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BECAUSE IT FINDS THAT THE TEN YEAR SENTENCE IS 2 APPROPRIATE WHEN CONSIDERING RELEVANT SENTENCING FACTORS. 3 In submitting a motion to reduce a sentence, a defendant request leniency from the court. 4 See United States v. Eastman, 743 F.2d 1322, 1323 (9th Cir. 1984). A Court may reduce a 5 sentence, when upon reflection, the originally imposed sentence seems unduly harsh. See 6 United States v. Maynard, 485 F.2d 247, 248 (9th Cir. 1973). A motion to reduce a defendant's 7 sentence is addressed at the discretion of the sentencing court. Eastman, 743 F.2d at 1323. 8 Additionally, a court has the discretion to impose a sentence that runs either concurrently or 9 consecutively when a judgment of conviction includes more than one crime. See 9 GCA § 10 80.l0(b). 11 Here, defense counsel asks the Court for leniency and requests that the Defendant's 12 sentence be reduced. In particular, the Defendant requests that the Court order his sentences to 13 Mn concurrently rather than consecutively. Defendant argues that the ten year sentence in this 14 matter is unduly harsh, noting that prior to these convictions, Defendant had not been convicted 15 of a felony. Furthermore, Defendant points out that he was not convicted of a crime considered 16 to be violent under Guam's sentencing statutes.

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

People v. Nego, (superctguam 2022).

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

Related

United States v. Wayne Wilburn Maynard
485 F.2d 247 (Ninth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Gerald Lee Eastman
743 F.2d 1322 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)