People v. Palomo

Opinion

CLER}( COLJRT

2

3

4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF00l0-19 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report No. 19-00470 )

8 vs. )

)

9 ) DECISION & ORDER ) RE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 10 JASON ALAN PALOMO, DISMISS FOR WANT OF ) PROSECUTION DOB: 11/09/1984 11 )

12 Defendant. )

---------------~)

13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on May 20, 2026, for a 14

15 Motion Hearing. Defendant Jason Alan Palomo ("Defendant") was present with counsel Public

16 Defender Ramiro Orozco. Assistant Attorney General Lucas Wood was present for the People of 17 Guam ("People"). The court addressed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of 18 Prosecution, which was filed on March 4, 2026. Following the hearing, the court took the matter 19 under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, CVR 20

21 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.lofthe Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having duly considered

22 the parties' briefings, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision 23 and Order DENYING the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution.

24 BACKGROUND

25 Based on events that occurred on or about January 5, 2019, the Defendant was charged 26

27 for the POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 3rd Degree

28 Felony). See Indictment (Jan. 15, 2019).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19

In light of the Defendant's first violation for failing to report as ordered, the court issued a bench

2 warrant for his arrest. See Criminal Trial Setting Hr'g Mins. at 1: 12: 13 - 12:38PM (Mar. 22,

3 2019). Upon the warrant's return on May 26, 2021, the court released him and rescheduled the 4 Further Proceedings for a later date. See Return of Warrant Hr'g Mins. at 5:07:IOPM (May 28, 5 2021 ). Despite this, the Defendant failed to appear for the rescheduled hearing on August 9, 2021, 6

7 leading the court to issue another bench warrant. See Status Hr'g Mins. at 9:58:20AM (Aug. 9,

8 2021). However, this warrant was not returned until 2023. See Return of Warrant (July 19, 2023). 9 Although the court denied his release at the Return of Warrant hearing, the court released 10 him at a later hearing on October 24, 2023, in light of his Adult Drug Court eligibility and plea 11 negotiations ongoing. See Return of Warrant Hr' g Mins. at 11 :49:57AM (Sep. 5, 2023); see also 12

13 Further Proceedings Mins. at 11 :54:08AM (Oct. 24, 2023). However, the court issued another

14 bench warrant for his arrest. See Further Proceedings Mins. at 11:10:13AM (Feb. 6, 2024). After 15 the warrant's return on December 2, 2025, the court released the Defendant from confinement.

16 See Return of Warrant Hr'g Mins. at 4:42:57PM (Dec. 4, 2025).

17 On March 4, 2026, the Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution 18

19 ("Motion to Dismiss"). After the People filed a Reply to the Motion to Dismiss, the court

20 scheduled a hearing to address the Motion to Dismiss. At the Motion Hearing, the court declined 21 to address the Motion to Compel Discovery, which was filed on June 18, 2026, until resolving 22 the Motion to Dismiss. After hearing the parties' arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, the court 23

24 took the matter under advisement.

25 DISCUSSION

26 The Defendant argued that "[t]his prosecution has remained stagnant for an extended 27 period despite repeated defense inquiries and requests for plea discussions." Def. 's Mot. Dismiss 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19

(Mar. 4, 2026). "If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court, on its own

2 motion, may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint." 8 GCA § 80.70(b). Before

3 granting dismissal under 8 GCA § 80.70(b), the court must determine whether a case's delay was 4 unnecessary enough to find a violation of the Defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial.

5 The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a speedy and public trial in all criminal 6

7 prosecutions against the accused. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. For U.S. citizens residing in Guam,

8 "[t]he Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, incorporated by the Organic Act of

9 Guam, guarantees the accused the 'right to a speedy and public trial."' People v. Mendiola, 2023 10 Guam 12 ,r 21 (citing U.S. Const. amend. VI.; 48 U.S.C.A. § 142lb(g); 8 GCA § 1.ll(a) (2005)).

11 The Guam Supreme Court has previously determined whether a person's constitutional 12

13 right to speedy trial was violated when considering, as a whole, the following factors in Barker v.

14 Wingo: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the cause of the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his 15 right to a speedy trial; and (4) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. People 16 v. Mendiola, 2015 Guam 26 ,r 13 (quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972)). This 17 court will now review the Barker factors to determine whether the Defendant's constitutional right 18

19 to a speedy trial was violated. 1

20 A. The Length of the Delay 21 The first Barker factor to review is how long of a delay exists in the Defendant's case.

22 "The length of the delay is measured from the point of arrest or indictment until trial." People v.

23

24 Naich, 2013 Guam 7,r 50 (citing People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r 43). Until there is delay that

25 is presumptively prejudicial, there is no need for inquiry into or balancing of the other Barker

26

27 1 The Defendant cited to this court's analysis of the factors under Barker v. Wingo; specifically, the court's Decision 28 and Order issued in Criminal Case No. CM0262-21. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 2. Due to incomplete citations to its previous Decision and Order, the court reminds counsel ofrelevant standards for citing authority.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19 factors. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. The more serious or complex the charge, the greater the

2 length of delay that will be tolerated. Id. at 530-31.

3 While there is no exact amount of time that constitutes as prejudicial, the Guam Supreme 4 Court has previously found delays of six (6) years and four (4) years to be prejudicial enough to 5 warrant examination of the other Barker factors. See Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r,r 43-44; see also 6

7 People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ,r 24. However, the Court has also held that an eighteen-month

8 delay did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation when much of that time was attributable 9 to the defendant. See Naich, 2013 Guam 7 if 57. 10 The Defendant argued that he has waited for seven (7) years to resolve this 2019 case. See 11 Mot. Hr' g Mins. at 4: 12:08 - 42:45PM (May 20, 2026). While not contesting the length of delay 12

13 in this case, the People called the court's attention to three (3) bench warrants issued in this case.

14 Id. Upon the court's review of the case, the Defendant was indicted for POSSESSION OF A

15 SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 3rd Degree Felony) on January 15, 2019.

16 See Indictment (Jan. 15, 2019). Because this case has not gone to trial, the court notes that it has 17 been approximately seven (7) years and four (4) months between the time of Indictment and the 18

19 filing of the Motion to Dismiss. The length of this delay on a single, felony possession charge is

20 longer than the maximum amount of imprisonment the Defendant faces if found guilty or entered 21 his guilty plea - three (3) years. 2 22 Therefore, the court finds that the length of this delay is presumptively prejudicial enough 23

24 to warrant further review of the other Barker factors.

25 \\

26

2 27 "In cases where § 67.401.11 is applicable to the sentencing of a person, a person who has not been previously convicted of a felony relative to the possession of any controlled substance and has been convicted of a felony for 28 the first time relative to possession of methamphetamine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of no more than three (3) years and a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00)." 9 GCA § 67.401.12 (emphasis added).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00I0-19

B. The Cause of the Delay

2 Under the second Barker factor, the court must review the People's reasons for the delay

3 in bringing the Defendant to trial. In comparison to "[a] deliberate attempt to delay trial in order 4 to hamper the defense," a more neutral reason for the People's delay is weighed less heavily but 5 still requires consideration. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8, 61 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531).

6

7 The People referenced three (3) bench warrants that attributed to the delay in this case.

8 See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 4:12:08 - 42:45PM (May 20, 2026). In contrast, the Defendant indicated

9 that he "sought plea negotiations and resolution since late 2025, yet no plea updated offers have 10 followed the ADC I plea that was sent but is no longer valid due to the current closure of the ADC 11 I program, nor has a discovery update followed." Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 2.

12

13 As stated above, the court issued three warrants issued for the Defendant's arrest in this

14 case: (1) Bench Warrant issued on March 17, 2019, that was returned on May 26, 2021; (2) Bench 15 Warrant issued on August 10, 2021, that was returned on July 19, 2023; and (3) a Warrant of 16 Arrest issued on February 7, 2024, that was returned December 2, 2025. 3 Although the Defendant 17 argues that these bench warrants were not sufficient reasons to delay bringing this case, the court 18

19 disagrees as this case cannot go forward without a defendant present. While the Defendant

20 attributes some of the delay in this case to receiving no "discovery update" from the People, the 21 Defendant did not raise any issue over the People's compliance with its discovery obligations in 22 this case until filing the Motion to Dismiss in 2026. See Def. 's Mot. Dismiss at 2.

23

24 \\ \\ 25

26 \\

27 3 See Bench Warrant (Mar. 17, 2019); see also Return of Warrant (May 26, 2021); see also Bench Warrant (Aug. 10, 28 2021); see also Return of Warrant (July 19, 2023); see also Warrant of Arrest (Feb. 7, 2024); see also Return of Warrant (Dec. 2, 2025).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19

The Defendant's bench warrants and several requests to continue negotiations made on the

2 record do not show that the People deliberately attempted to delay trial to hamper the defense.

3 Therefore, the court finds that the cause for the delay weighs against the Defendant. 4 C. Defendant Palomo's Assertion of His Right to a Speedy Trial 5 This next factor calls this court to consider the Defendant's assertion of speedy trial. In 6

7 order to successfully argue that a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred, a defendant bears the

8 responsibility to proactively assert a speedy trial claim. See Mendiola, 1999 Guam ,r 29 ( citing

9 Barker, 407 U.S. at 529). "[F]ailure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to 10 prove that he was denied a speedy trial." Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. Even with a defendant's 11 assertion of speedy trial, which is entitled to strong evidentiary weight, the court must exercise its 12

13 judicial discretion, viewing that assertion in light of the defendant's other conduct. See Flores,

14 2009 Guam ,r 47 (citing United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 314 (1986)). 15 In addition to orally waiving his right to speedy trial at arraignment, the Defendant filed a 16 written waiver of speedy trial that same day. See Arraignment Hr'g Mins. at 10:36:07AM (Feb.

17 13, 2019); see also Waiver (Feb. 13, 2019). Therefore, the court finds that this factor weighs 18

19 against him.

20 D. The Presence or Absence of Prejudice Resulting from the Delay 21 The last factor for the court to review is whether the Defendant suffered any prejudice due 22 to the delay in this case. An "[i]nordinate delay between public charge and trial" may (1) prejudice 23

24 "a defense on the merits"-such as through the deterioration of crucial evidence, unavailability of

25 witnesses, or subversion of the defendant's ability to prepare for trial-or (2) seriously prejudice

26 "defendant's liberty, . . . disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his 27 associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends."

28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19

People v. Corpuz, 2019 Guam 1 ,r 25; United States v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2016)

2 (quoting United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 340-41 (1988)) (explaining prejudice to defendant

3 may come in trial prejudice or non-trial prejudice); People v. Aromin, 2014 Guam 3 ,r 24. Because 4 this case did not go to trial, the court will examine the existence of any non-trial prejudice against 5 the Defendant.

6

7 As to the offenses charged in this case, the Defendant argued that the People's neglect

8 caused substantial prejudice in the following ways: (1) witness memory and evidence have

9 deteriorated since the 2019 offense; (2) the Defendant's ability to investigate or prepare a defense 10 is impaired; and (3) he remains under restrictive release conditions, sustaining anxiety and 11 reputational harm. See Def.' s Mot. Dismiss at 3.

12

13 When asked about these possible prejudices to the Defendant at the Motion Hearing,

14 however, the Defendant noted that a material witness in this case is now deceased as well as the 15 Adult Drug Court Program's inability to accept more participants. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 4:12:08 16 -42:45PM (May 20, 2026). Without more than conclusory presumptions of prejudice suffered by 17 the Defendant, the court is not convinced that the prejudice was so substantial to prove 18

19 unnecessary delay in this case. Therefore, the court finds that this factor weighs against the

20 Defendant. 21 Because majority of the Barker factors weigh against the Defendant, the court finds that 22 there was no violation of his constitutional right to speedy trial and denies the dismissal of this 23

case.

24

25 \\

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00I0-19

CONCLUSION

2 For reasons stated above, the court hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

3 for Want of Prosecution. 4

5 A Further Proceedings is scheduled before this court on August 19, 2026, at 9:00AM.

6

7

8 SO ORDERED -~---------

9

10

11

12

13 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 SERVDCE VIA E-MAIL 23 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to:

24 Ata, pose 25 D~~:&/i/,1, !~s,,1a,..

Time:

26 An-1.,ti;.,. ~ Deputy Clerk, S

27

28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution People v. Palomo, CF00l0-19