F K LE D SUPEREOR COURT GFGUAM 1 2022 APR 20 AH 10= \2 2 CLERKUECOURT 3 BY=._...-. ..-...- .~=-----
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Case No. cF0026-21 8 vs. 9 DECISION AND ORDER (Ex Parte Application for the Appointment DONOVAN ALLEN CHARGUALAF 10 of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second ORNELLAS : Forensic Evaluation) 11 Defendant. 12
15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on April 6, 2022, for an Ex
16 Parte Application on Donovan Allen Chargualaf Ornellas's ("Defendant") Ex Parte 17 Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second Forensic Evaluation 18 ("Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist"). Attorney Gloria Rudolph and Attorney 19 Terence Timblin appeared for Defendant. Having considered the arguments and the applicable 20 law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Application for the Appointment of a 21 Psychiatrist. 22
BACKGROUND 23
24 On January 29, 2021, a grand jury indicted Defendant on the following charges: (1)
25 Murder (As a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
26 Commission of a Felony, (2) Murder (As a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation:
Page1 of 6 1 . Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and (3) Aggravated Assault (As a 2 Second Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Use of a Deadly Weapon in the 3 4 Commission of a Felony. Indictment, Jan. 29, 2021. On February 3, 2021, Defendant pled Not
5 Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease, or Defect. Minute Entry, Feb. 3, 2021. Pursuant
6 to 9 GCA § 7.25, the Client Services and Family Counseling Division of the Superior Court of
7 Guam ("CSFC") arranged for Defendant to undergo a forensic evaluation with a qualified
8 psychologist. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Feb. 3, 2021. On February 24, 2021, Defendant
9 underwent his forensic evaluation with Dr. Juan Rapadas, an expert clinical psychologist at 1 . . . 0 CSFC. Forenslc Evaluatlon at 2, Mar. 19, 2021. Dr. Rapadas concluded that "[Defendant] did 11 not lack substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing, to know or understand 12 that his conduct was wrongful, or to control his actions, or to the extent which, as a 13 consequence of mental illness, disease, or defect, the defendant did not have a state of mind 14 15 relevant to the issues in the tn'al of action." Id. at 20.
On July 20, 2021, Defendant filed the instant motion. Ex Parte Application for the 16
17 Appointment of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second' Forensic Evaluation (hereinafter
18 "Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist"), July 20, 2021. The People filed an
19 opposition. People's Resp. in Opp'n. to Def.'s Ex Parte Application for the Appointment of a
20 Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second Forensic Evaluation (hereinafter "People Resp. in Opp'n."), 21 Dec. 10. 2021. The Court ordered all documents and proceedings related to Defendant's 22 request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to conduct a second evaluation sealed in order to 23 protect Defendant's strategy at trial. Order Sealing Files, Jan. 19, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the 24 Court held a sealed hearing on the Application and took Defendant's arguments under 25 26 advisement. Minute Entry, Apr. 6, 2022.
27 Page 2 of 6 1 DISCUSSION 2 Defendant requests the Court appoint an independent psychiatrist to assist in his 3 4 defense. Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist at 1. He argues that the
government must provide indigent defendants with the assistance of an independent 5
6 psychiatrist-in addition to the neutral court psychiatrist-when the defendant has made a
7 preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is going to be a significant factor
8 a trial. Id. at 2-3. Defendant also states that he intends to dispute Dr. Rapadas's findings. Id.
9 at 3-4. The People assert that Defendant is not entitled to an independent evaluation unless he 10 can demonstrate cause such as bias or incompetency-which Defendant does not do in his 11 motion. People Resp. in Opp'n. at 2. 12 The Supreme Court of the United States has found that constitutional principles of due 13 process require the government to provide access to the assistance of a competent psychiatrist 14 15 when a defendant's mental state is at issue and he cannot otherwise afford expert assistance.
16 Aka v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 (1985). Due process requires that the government, at
17 minimum, "assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an 57 18 appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.
19 Id. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that this right does not allow an indigent
20 defendant "to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own." 21 Id. 22 Title 9 G.C.A. § '7.25(b) provides "[w]henever, in the opinion of the court, any other 23 expert evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition is, or will be required by the court 24 or either party, the court shall appoint one or more such experts to examine the defendant and 25 26 to report upon his mental condition as the court may direct." Neither the Supreme Court of the
27 United States nor the. Supreme Court of Guam have specifically addressed whether a neutral
Page 3 of 6 1 state psychiatrist satisfies constitutional due process, and federal circuit courts reach distinct 2 conclusions on this issue. See Powellv. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 391 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting 3 4 several circuit courts have held that constitutional due process "... is not satisfied unless the
defendant is provided an independent psychiatrist-Le., the appointment of a neutral court 5 ml. 6 p sychi tri st, such as in the matter at hand, does not satisfy due process. : see also Granviel v.
7 Lynaugh, 881 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding a neutral psychiatrist satisfies due process
8 guarantees of fundamental fairness), and Pawlyk v. Wood, 248 F.3d 815, 824 (Ending a neutral
9 psychiatrist insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process only when the court is the fact- 10 . . . . finder). Guam dual courts have held that constltutlonal and Guam law only requlre the Court to 11 appoint a neutral state psychiatrist. See People v. Steven Q. Rabago, CF0506-10, No v. 11, 12 2012 ("Absent a showing that the Court appoiNted psychiatrist is unqualified to report upon the 13 Defendant's mental condition, there is no requirement that the Court pay for an additional 14 15 psychiatrist for the Defendant."), see also People v. Jose Weenie Agualo, CF0216-07 and
16 CF0400-08, Aug. 16, 2011 (finding the appointment of a qualified psychiatrist under 9 G.C.A.
17 § 7.25 satisfies due process guarantees of fundamental fairness).
18 Defendant made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is
19 likely to be a significant factor at trial, and the Court provided Dr. Rapadas's assistance to
20 Defendant. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Feb. 3, 2021. The Court finds that Defendant's
21 constitutional right to the assistance of a psychiatrist was satisfied with the appointment of Dr. 22 Rapadas. Defendant states that he disputes Dr. Rapadas findings and requests the assistance of 23 a second psychiatrist.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F K LE D SUPEREOR COURT GFGUAM 1 2022 APR 20 AH 10= \2 2 CLERKUECOURT 3 BY=._...-. ..-...- .~=-----
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Case No. cF0026-21 8 vs. 9 DECISION AND ORDER (Ex Parte Application for the Appointment DONOVAN ALLEN CHARGUALAF 10 of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second ORNELLAS : Forensic Evaluation) 11 Defendant. 12
15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on April 6, 2022, for an Ex
16 Parte Application on Donovan Allen Chargualaf Ornellas's ("Defendant") Ex Parte 17 Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second Forensic Evaluation 18 ("Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist"). Attorney Gloria Rudolph and Attorney 19 Terence Timblin appeared for Defendant. Having considered the arguments and the applicable 20 law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Application for the Appointment of a 21 Psychiatrist. 22
BACKGROUND 23
24 On January 29, 2021, a grand jury indicted Defendant on the following charges: (1)
25 Murder (As a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Use of a Deadly Weapon in the
26 Commission of a Felony, (2) Murder (As a First Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation:
Page1 of 6 1 . Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and (3) Aggravated Assault (As a 2 Second Degree Felony) with the Special Allegation: Use of a Deadly Weapon in the 3 4 Commission of a Felony. Indictment, Jan. 29, 2021. On February 3, 2021, Defendant pled Not
5 Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease, or Defect. Minute Entry, Feb. 3, 2021. Pursuant
6 to 9 GCA § 7.25, the Client Services and Family Counseling Division of the Superior Court of
7 Guam ("CSFC") arranged for Defendant to undergo a forensic evaluation with a qualified
8 psychologist. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Feb. 3, 2021. On February 24, 2021, Defendant
9 underwent his forensic evaluation with Dr. Juan Rapadas, an expert clinical psychologist at 1 . . . 0 CSFC. Forenslc Evaluatlon at 2, Mar. 19, 2021. Dr. Rapadas concluded that "[Defendant] did 11 not lack substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing, to know or understand 12 that his conduct was wrongful, or to control his actions, or to the extent which, as a 13 consequence of mental illness, disease, or defect, the defendant did not have a state of mind 14 15 relevant to the issues in the tn'al of action." Id. at 20.
On July 20, 2021, Defendant filed the instant motion. Ex Parte Application for the 16
17 Appointment of a Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second' Forensic Evaluation (hereinafter
18 "Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist"), July 20, 2021. The People filed an
19 opposition. People's Resp. in Opp'n. to Def.'s Ex Parte Application for the Appointment of a
20 Psychiatrist to Conduct a Second Forensic Evaluation (hereinafter "People Resp. in Opp'n."), 21 Dec. 10. 2021. The Court ordered all documents and proceedings related to Defendant's 22 request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to conduct a second evaluation sealed in order to 23 protect Defendant's strategy at trial. Order Sealing Files, Jan. 19, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the 24 Court held a sealed hearing on the Application and took Defendant's arguments under 25 26 advisement. Minute Entry, Apr. 6, 2022.
27 Page 2 of 6 1 DISCUSSION 2 Defendant requests the Court appoint an independent psychiatrist to assist in his 3 4 defense. Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist at 1. He argues that the
government must provide indigent defendants with the assistance of an independent 5
6 psychiatrist-in addition to the neutral court psychiatrist-when the defendant has made a
7 preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is going to be a significant factor
8 a trial. Id. at 2-3. Defendant also states that he intends to dispute Dr. Rapadas's findings. Id.
9 at 3-4. The People assert that Defendant is not entitled to an independent evaluation unless he 10 can demonstrate cause such as bias or incompetency-which Defendant does not do in his 11 motion. People Resp. in Opp'n. at 2. 12 The Supreme Court of the United States has found that constitutional principles of due 13 process require the government to provide access to the assistance of a competent psychiatrist 14 15 when a defendant's mental state is at issue and he cannot otherwise afford expert assistance.
16 Aka v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 (1985). Due process requires that the government, at
17 minimum, "assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an 57 18 appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.
19 Id. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that this right does not allow an indigent
20 defendant "to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own." 21 Id. 22 Title 9 G.C.A. § '7.25(b) provides "[w]henever, in the opinion of the court, any other 23 expert evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition is, or will be required by the court 24 or either party, the court shall appoint one or more such experts to examine the defendant and 25 26 to report upon his mental condition as the court may direct." Neither the Supreme Court of the
27 United States nor the. Supreme Court of Guam have specifically addressed whether a neutral
Page 3 of 6 1 state psychiatrist satisfies constitutional due process, and federal circuit courts reach distinct 2 conclusions on this issue. See Powellv. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 391 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting 3 4 several circuit courts have held that constitutional due process "... is not satisfied unless the
defendant is provided an independent psychiatrist-Le., the appointment of a neutral court 5 ml. 6 p sychi tri st, such as in the matter at hand, does not satisfy due process. : see also Granviel v.
7 Lynaugh, 881 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding a neutral psychiatrist satisfies due process
8 guarantees of fundamental fairness), and Pawlyk v. Wood, 248 F.3d 815, 824 (Ending a neutral
9 psychiatrist insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process only when the court is the fact- 10 . . . . finder). Guam dual courts have held that constltutlonal and Guam law only requlre the Court to 11 appoint a neutral state psychiatrist. See People v. Steven Q. Rabago, CF0506-10, No v. 11, 12 2012 ("Absent a showing that the Court appoiNted psychiatrist is unqualified to report upon the 13 Defendant's mental condition, there is no requirement that the Court pay for an additional 14 15 psychiatrist for the Defendant."), see also People v. Jose Weenie Agualo, CF0216-07 and
16 CF0400-08, Aug. 16, 2011 (finding the appointment of a qualified psychiatrist under 9 G.C.A.
17 § 7.25 satisfies due process guarantees of fundamental fairness).
18 Defendant made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is
19 likely to be a significant factor at trial, and the Court provided Dr. Rapadas's assistance to
20 Defendant. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Feb. 3, 2021. The Court finds that Defendant's
21 constitutional right to the assistance of a psychiatrist was satisfied with the appointment of Dr. 22 Rapadas. Defendant states that he disputes Dr. Rapadas findings and requests the assistance of 23 a second psychiatrist. Application for the Appointment of a Psychiatrist at 3-4. Upon 24 reviewing the record, the Court finds that Del Rapadas is a competent psychologist who 25 26 conducted an appropriate examination. Accordingly, as nothing in the record suggests Dr.
27 Rapadas was incompetent or conducted an inappropriate examination, the constitutional due
Page 4 of 6 1 process requirements are satisfied. Defendant is entitled to dispute Dr. Rapadas's findings, but 2 neither constitutional due process nor Guam law requires defendants receive assistance from a 3 4 second psychiatrist in disputing a court appointed psychiatrist's findings.
Even so, 9 G.C.A. § 7.25(b) gives the Court discretion to appoint a second psychiatrist. 5
6 Defendant demonstrated the complexity of his mental state at the time of the offense during the
7 Ex Parte hearing, including outlining how an additional psychiatrist would aid him in the
8 preparation of his defense at trial. The Court also notes that although not required by law, a
9 second psychiatrist is useful in disputing Dr. Rapadas's findings. Accordingly, the Court 10 . . . . . . . . . . exerclses its dlscretlon and appoints a second psycluatnst to asslst Defendant in his defense at 11 trial. 12 Title 9 G.C.A. § 7.25(g) states "[e]ach psychiatrist appointed by the court who 13 examines the defendant pursuant to this Section shall file a written report with the clerk of the 14 court who shall deliver copies to each party." Thus, the Court finds that the People are entitled 15
16 to a copy of the report that the independent psychiatrist generates and requests Defendant
.17 ensure the People receive a copy.
18 Lastly, the Court notes that Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam Miscellaneous
19 Rule 1.1 .4(c) states "[w]here counsel has received prior authorization for investigators, experts
20 and interpreters, the maximum total shall not exceed $l,500.00. Counsel appointed under 21 these rules may apply to the Administrator of the Courts to exceed this maximum." Therefore, 22 while the Court appoints an independent psychiatrist to assist Defendant in his defense, 23 Defendant will need to keep costs within $1,500.00 or apply to the Administrator of the Courts 24 for additional funds. The Court declines to provide input in this regard. 25
Page 5 of 6 1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Forthe abovereasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Application for the 3 4 Appointment of a Psychiatrist.
6 SO ORDERED, this day of APR 2 n 2022 2022. 7
10 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12
20 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 21 copy of the original was e-mailed to:
22 HE ¢ Gr -Fnurloiyhr T- 't s 'Fm 23 Dat8'-l';;t9- Tjme: l o ' \G¢*M
24 A¢Aq»a Cr qr l/ Deputy Clerk, S her Court of Guam
Page 6 of 6