People v. Pangelinan

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 26, 2022
• Docket: CF0225-19
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ff W bd

oOo Oo NSN DW AN

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2022 JAN26 PH 4:5) CLERK OF COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, : Criminal Case No. CF0225-19 GPD Report No. 19-10537 Vv. DECISION AND ORDER JARID JOSEPH T. PANGELINAN, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION DOB: 08/22/1988 FOR BILL OF PARITCULARS Defendant. INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on January 14, 2022 for hearing on Defendant Jarid Joseph T. Pangelinan’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion for Bill of Particulars

(“Motion”). Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and Joaquin Arriola, Jr.

represents Defendant. Having duly considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable

law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant’s Motion. _ BACKGROUND ©

On April 23, 2019, Defendant was indicted and charged with First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1 Degree Felony) and Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1“ Degree Felony) (Two Counts). See Indictment (Apr. 23, 2019).

All motions were due by December 4, 2020. See Trial Scheduling Order (Jul. 24, 2020).

On January 7, 2022, Defendant filed his Motion for Bill of Particulars. Defendant claims

that much of the evidence read during the grand jury proceeding cannot be tied to specific dates,

making it unclear which charges there is a basis towards. See Motion at 2 (Jan. 7, 2022).

Defendant claims the indictment must be fleshed out with additional information, so as to notify

him of the charges against him and provide him an opportunity to prepare his defense. Id. at 3. Decision and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars

CF0225-19, People of Guam v. Jarid Pangelinan Page 1 of 2

tw:

o fe YN Dn nm Ee W

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 |.

On January 11, 2022, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (“Opposition”). The People argued the Indictment was as specific as it could be, and-that it properly gave Defendant notice of the charges against him. See Opposition at 3-4 (Jan. 11, 2022).

On January 13, 2022, Defendant filed his Reply to People’s Opposition (“Defendant’s Reply”). Defendant once again asked for particularity on the time frame and facts supporting the charges against him, pointing out vagueness contained in the Magistrate’ s Complaint and Indictment. See Defendant’s Reply at 2-3 (Jan. 13, 2022).

The Court held a hearing on January 14, 2022. However, the Court denied the Motion, determining it was filed outside the motion cut-off date.

DISCUSSION —

Courts will not hear a motion that has been filed beyond the Court’s motion deadline, unless the moving party provides “good cause” as to why the motion was not timely. See People of Guam v. Erty Yerten, 2021 Guam 8, { 8.

Defendant’s Motion was untimely, being filed several months after the Court’s motion deadline. Furthermore, Defendant failed to provide any reason why the motion was not timely or why relief from the automatic waiver should be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.

_ Jan. 26, 2022 IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ nunc pro tunc to Jan. 14, 2022.

HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Decision and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars CF0225-19, People of Guam v. Jarid Pangelinan Page 2 of 2