i=" Mio SUPERIOR COURT Gt GUAM 1 2020 AUG 18 FH "Ly: 08 2 CLERKOFCOURT 3
4 / IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NOS.: ) 7 ) CM0001-20/CM0199-20 Plaintiff, ) (CONSOLIDATED AS CM0001-20) 8 vs. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 JARRETT CRUZ PANGELINAN, JR. 9 ) CONSOLIDATING CASES AND 10 ) TRANSFERRING CASE TO MENTAL Defendant. HEALTH COURT DOCKET ) 11 ) 12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on August 18, 2020 for a 14 hearing to address Defendant's competency to be proceeded against.1 Defendant was not 15
16 present, but was represented by counsel Assistant Public Defender PJ Serbian, who waived his
17 client's presence for the purpose of the hearing. Also present by phone was Defendant's mother 18 Yvonne Demapan. Assistant Attorney General Alyssa Draper-Dehart represented the People of 19 Guam. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court issues this Decision and Order consolidating 20
21 the cases and transferring this matter to the Mental Health Court docket.
22 BACKGROUND 23 CM0001-20: On January 2, 2020, Defendant was charged with Criminal Mischief as a 24 Misdemeanor for allegedly ldcldng a door and brealdng a mirror and a door latch at the victim's 25 1 26 The Defendant's competency to be proceeded against was placed at issue before the Magistrate Judge on January 8, 2020, at the Arraignment Hearing. A forensic evaluation was ordered by the magistrate on January 8, 2020 and 27 Defendant was committed to the custody of the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center (GBHWC).
28 People of Guam vs. Pang elinan, Criminal Case No. CM000]-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM0001-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 1 of 5 . residence. He was initially committed to the Department of Corrections on January 3, 2020, but 1
2 was transferred to the custody of the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center on the same
1 3 date. On January 6, Defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease 4 or Defect. Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease or Defect (Jan. 6, 5 2020). Magistrate Judge Jonathan Quam issued an Order for Forensic Evaluation (Jan. 8, 2020). 6 Prior to the pandemic shut down on March 17, 2020, Defendant was to have been transferred to 7
8 Lighthouse Recovery Center (LRC), however, following the shut down of non-essential services,
9 Defendant remained at the Adult InPatient Unit (AIU) of GBHWC until his release on July 14,
10 2020. Order of Conditional Release (Jul. 14, 2020). 1l On March 9, 2020, a Forensic Evaluation was filed finding that Defendant was "not 12
13 competent to be proceeded against and to be sentenced." Forensic Evaluation at p. 5 (Mar. 9,
14 2020). On the issue of restorability, the undisputed conclusion is that Defendant "may -not
15 possibly be restored to competency because of the chronic nature of his current psychiatric and 16 cognitive conditions." Id. at p. 7. Both the People and Defendant agree with the findings set 17 forth in the Forensic Evaluation. However, before the Defendant could be transferred to the 18
19 appropriate service provider and to the mental health court docket, the pandemic caused a shut-
20 down of government operations, including the progress of the instant case. 21 CM199-20: On or about May 24, 2020, while Defendant was confined at the AIU of 22 GBHWC under the order issued by Magistrate Quan, he is alleged to have assaulted employees 23 of GBHWC and caused property destruction. These allegations form the basis of two charges 24
25 against him for Assault as a Misdemeanor and one charge of Criminal Mischief (As a
26 Misdemeanor).. Magistrate Complaint (May 26, 2020). Although no Order for Forensic 27
28 People of Guam vs. Pangelilmrz, Criminal Case No. CM0001-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM000I-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 2 of 5 Evaluation was issued in this case, the parties agreed during the August 18, 2020 hearing, that l
2 the findings of Dr. Juan Rapadas in CM0001-20 would apply in the instant matter.
3 DISCUSSION 4 I. Consolidation is appropriate. 5 Under Guam law, "[t]he court may order two or more indictments or information or both 6 to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been 7 8 joined in a single indictment or information. T h e procedu re sh all be th e sam e as if th e
9 prosecution were under such a single indictment or information." 8 GCA § 65.30. In addition,
10 "[t]wo (2) or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate
Ii count for each offense if the Offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based
13 in the same act or transaction or on two (2) or more acts or transactions connected together or
14 constituting parts of a common scheme or plan." 8 GCA § 55.35(a).
15 When determining whether the offenses are properly joined, courts have traditionally 16 considered "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they involve similar 17 victims, locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the charged conduct 18
19 occurred." United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (let Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
20 Furthermore, "the validity of joining offenses is determined solely by the allegations in the 21 indictment." United States v. Greene, 52 F.3d 335, *I (9th Cir. 1995). (citing United States v. 22 23 Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447 (1986)).
T h e Cou rt fin ds th at th e circu mstan ces of CM0 1 9 9 -2 0 are of th e same or similar 24
25 character and involved the destruction of property and behavior that resulted in property
26 damage. Moreover, the acts occurred within a 4-month span of time during a government shut- 27
28 People of Glmm vs. Pangelinan, Criminal Case No. CM000I-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM000]-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 3 of 5 down occasioned by COVID-I9. The Court finds additionally that, but for the original 1 2 conuhitment to GBHWC in CM000l-20 and the inability to transfer him to LRC for treatment
.3 or to MHC for a treatment plan due to the shut-down of court operations until early June, 2020,
4 Defendant would likely not have been charged with the later offense because he would have 5 either been an in-patient at LRC or released to fami1y members with a treatment plan and 6 monitored by MHC. 7
8 For these reasons, the Court finds that consolidation of both matters is justified. The
9 charges set forth in CM0199-20 shall be consolidated with those of CM0001-20 and the 10 surviving case shall be CM0001-20. ll 11. Transfer to MHC is appropriate. 12
13 Under 9 GCA §7.37(a), a competent defendant must be able to: understand the nature of
14 the proceedings, assist and cooperate with his counsel, follow the evidence, and participate in
15 his defense. Inability to perform even one of these tasks will support a finding of incompetency 16 to be proceeded against. The question of Defendant's likelihood of regaining competency to be 17 proceeded against under 9 GCA § 7.37 subsections (d) and (D may take place in an open court 18
19 competency hearing, but a "competency hearing is not mandatory under the provisions of 9
20 GCA § 7.43." People v. Hemming, 2012 Guam 19 '][ 11.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
i=" Mio SUPERIOR COURT Gt GUAM 1 2020 AUG 18 FH "Ly: 08 2 CLERKOFCOURT 3
4 / IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NOS.: ) 7 ) CM0001-20/CM0199-20 Plaintiff, ) (CONSOLIDATED AS CM0001-20) 8 vs. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 JARRETT CRUZ PANGELINAN, JR. 9 ) CONSOLIDATING CASES AND 10 ) TRANSFERRING CASE TO MENTAL Defendant. HEALTH COURT DOCKET ) 11 ) 12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on August 18, 2020 for a 14 hearing to address Defendant's competency to be proceeded against.1 Defendant was not 15
16 present, but was represented by counsel Assistant Public Defender PJ Serbian, who waived his
17 client's presence for the purpose of the hearing. Also present by phone was Defendant's mother 18 Yvonne Demapan. Assistant Attorney General Alyssa Draper-Dehart represented the People of 19 Guam. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court issues this Decision and Order consolidating 20
21 the cases and transferring this matter to the Mental Health Court docket.
22 BACKGROUND 23 CM0001-20: On January 2, 2020, Defendant was charged with Criminal Mischief as a 24 Misdemeanor for allegedly ldcldng a door and brealdng a mirror and a door latch at the victim's 25 1 26 The Defendant's competency to be proceeded against was placed at issue before the Magistrate Judge on January 8, 2020, at the Arraignment Hearing. A forensic evaluation was ordered by the magistrate on January 8, 2020 and 27 Defendant was committed to the custody of the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center (GBHWC).
28 People of Guam vs. Pang elinan, Criminal Case No. CM000]-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM0001-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 1 of 5 . residence. He was initially committed to the Department of Corrections on January 3, 2020, but 1
2 was transferred to the custody of the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center on the same
1 3 date. On January 6, Defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease 4 or Defect. Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease or Defect (Jan. 6, 5 2020). Magistrate Judge Jonathan Quam issued an Order for Forensic Evaluation (Jan. 8, 2020). 6 Prior to the pandemic shut down on March 17, 2020, Defendant was to have been transferred to 7
8 Lighthouse Recovery Center (LRC), however, following the shut down of non-essential services,
9 Defendant remained at the Adult InPatient Unit (AIU) of GBHWC until his release on July 14,
10 2020. Order of Conditional Release (Jul. 14, 2020). 1l On March 9, 2020, a Forensic Evaluation was filed finding that Defendant was "not 12
13 competent to be proceeded against and to be sentenced." Forensic Evaluation at p. 5 (Mar. 9,
14 2020). On the issue of restorability, the undisputed conclusion is that Defendant "may -not
15 possibly be restored to competency because of the chronic nature of his current psychiatric and 16 cognitive conditions." Id. at p. 7. Both the People and Defendant agree with the findings set 17 forth in the Forensic Evaluation. However, before the Defendant could be transferred to the 18
19 appropriate service provider and to the mental health court docket, the pandemic caused a shut-
20 down of government operations, including the progress of the instant case. 21 CM199-20: On or about May 24, 2020, while Defendant was confined at the AIU of 22 GBHWC under the order issued by Magistrate Quan, he is alleged to have assaulted employees 23 of GBHWC and caused property destruction. These allegations form the basis of two charges 24
25 against him for Assault as a Misdemeanor and one charge of Criminal Mischief (As a
26 Misdemeanor).. Magistrate Complaint (May 26, 2020). Although no Order for Forensic 27
28 People of Guam vs. Pangelilmrz, Criminal Case No. CM0001-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM000I-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 2 of 5 Evaluation was issued in this case, the parties agreed during the August 18, 2020 hearing, that l
2 the findings of Dr. Juan Rapadas in CM0001-20 would apply in the instant matter.
3 DISCUSSION 4 I. Consolidation is appropriate. 5 Under Guam law, "[t]he court may order two or more indictments or information or both 6 to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been 7 8 joined in a single indictment or information. T h e procedu re sh all be th e sam e as if th e
9 prosecution were under such a single indictment or information." 8 GCA § 65.30. In addition,
10 "[t]wo (2) or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate
Ii count for each offense if the Offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based
13 in the same act or transaction or on two (2) or more acts or transactions connected together or
14 constituting parts of a common scheme or plan." 8 GCA § 55.35(a).
15 When determining whether the offenses are properly joined, courts have traditionally 16 considered "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they involve similar 17 victims, locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the charged conduct 18
19 occurred." United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (let Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
20 Furthermore, "the validity of joining offenses is determined solely by the allegations in the 21 indictment." United States v. Greene, 52 F.3d 335, *I (9th Cir. 1995). (citing United States v. 22 23 Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447 (1986)).
T h e Cou rt fin ds th at th e circu mstan ces of CM0 1 9 9 -2 0 are of th e same or similar 24
25 character and involved the destruction of property and behavior that resulted in property
26 damage. Moreover, the acts occurred within a 4-month span of time during a government shut- 27
28 People of Glmm vs. Pangelinan, Criminal Case No. CM000I-20 and CM0199-20 Consolidated Case No. CM000]-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 3 of 5 down occasioned by COVID-I9. The Court finds additionally that, but for the original 1 2 conuhitment to GBHWC in CM000l-20 and the inability to transfer him to LRC for treatment
.3 or to MHC for a treatment plan due to the shut-down of court operations until early June, 2020,
4 Defendant would likely not have been charged with the later offense because he would have 5 either been an in-patient at LRC or released to fami1y members with a treatment plan and 6 monitored by MHC. 7
8 For these reasons, the Court finds that consolidation of both matters is justified. The
9 charges set forth in CM0199-20 shall be consolidated with those of CM0001-20 and the 10 surviving case shall be CM0001-20. ll 11. Transfer to MHC is appropriate. 12
13 Under 9 GCA §7.37(a), a competent defendant must be able to: understand the nature of
14 the proceedings, assist and cooperate with his counsel, follow the evidence, and participate in
15 his defense. Inability to perform even one of these tasks will support a finding of incompetency 16 to be proceeded against. The question of Defendant's likelihood of regaining competency to be 17 proceeded against under 9 GCA § 7.37 subsections (d) and (D may take place in an open court 18
19 competency hearing, but a "competency hearing is not mandatory under the provisions of 9
20 GCA § 7.43." People v. Hemming, 2012 Guam 19 '][ 11. Because a competency hearing is not 21 required by § 7.43, "a trial court can properly- make a determination as to competency solely on 22 the basis of reports tiled with the court." Hemsing '][ 12. 23 The Forensic Evaluation concludes that Defendant is not competent to be proceeded 24
25 against or sentenced and, further, that he is not likely capable of being restored to competency
26 . due to the chronic nature of his mental illnesses and cognitive abilities. The parties both adopt 27
28 People of Guam vs. Pangelirzan, Crimirml Case No. CM000]-20 and CMOI99-20 Consolidated Case No. CM000]-20 Decision and Order Re. MoLson to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 4 of 5 \
the findings of Dr. Rapadas. and stipulate to his transfer to the Mental Health Court. 1 2 Additionally, as a consequence of the Order of this Court consolidating CM0199-20 with
3 CM0001-20, no separate forensic evaluation is necessary, as it would unnecessarily tax the 4 resources of the court, of the mental health service provider and does not encourage judicial 5 6 efficiency. For these reasons, the Court finds (and the parties have stipulated) that the
Defendant is appropriate for participation in the Mental Health Court docket and, therefore, this .7
8 consolidated CM0001-20 shall be transferred to the Mental Health Court.
9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the following: ll (1) CM0199-20 shall be consolidated with CM0001-20 and the surviving case shall be 12
13 captioned CM0001-20, and
14 (2) This matter shall be transferred to the Mental Health Court and a further proceeding
15 is scheduled before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on October 6, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. 16 SO ORDERED THIS NJI3 pa 2,881 17
18 x
19 --1.
20 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON JUDGE, SUPERIGR COURT OF GUAM 21 SERWCE VIA E-MML 22 L acknowledge that an electronic copycithe I .23 qqM(°'Y"'XiSilP?1'§& 24 I u
DA.IGGY Ll~l001r/ 25
26 we DepUty c1erk.§!&rit>r Coup of Guam
28 People of Guam vs. Pmzgeli/mn, Criminal Case No. CM000l-20 and CMOI99-20 Consolidated Case No. CM0001-20 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Consolidate and Transfer to MHC Page 5 of 5