People v. Pangelinan, S.V. and Aguon, M.Q.

Superior Court of Guam

People v. Pangelinan, S.V. and Aguon, M.Q.

Superior Court of Guam·Decided February 13, 2020·No. CF0502-19·Unknown

Opinion

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

GUAIVI

1 2929 mg \3 Mi le 25

2 CLERK OF COURT

3 8Y:_""_¢m,,,9(.,,»mwv\¢="-=1y* LU 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO: CF0502-.19» ....¢ .,. ~a

) GPD RepOrt No.: 19-25936 6 )

vs.

)

7 )

SHANE VINCENT PANGELINAN, )

8 aka Shay Shay Pangelinan, ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: PEOPLE'S ) MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT DOB: 08/22/1988, 9 ) PREJUDICE )

10 DEFENDANT. )

)

11 MARVIN QUINATA AGUON, )

DOB: 02/22/1970, )

12 )

)

13 DEFENDANT. > )

14 Introduction

15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on January 31, 2020 for a Pre- 16 Trial Conference. Defendant Shane Vincent Pangelinan ("Defendant Pangelinan") was present 17 and represented by Attorney Jeffrey Moots. Defendant Marvin Qui rata Aguon ("Defendant 18 Aguon") was present and represented by Attorney Zachary Taimanglo of the Public Defender's 19 Office. Attorneys Sean Brown and Alysa Draper-Dehart were present for the People of Guam 20 (the "People"). At the Pre-Trial Conference, the People raised an oral Motion to Dismiss the 21 matter w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t P a n g e l i n a n . T h e C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e M o t i o n . T h e 22 Court further vacated the Jury Selection and Trial date in the matter set for February 3, 2020. 23 The Court now issues this Decision and Order memorializing its oral ruling. 24 Background 25 Defendant Pangelinan is charged with Theft of an Automobile (As a 2"d Degree Felony). 26 Indictment (Sept. 24, 2019). Defendant Aguon is charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor 27 Vehicle (As a Misdemeanor). Id. Defendant Pangelinan previously asserted his right to"aspeedy 28

People v. Pangelinan & Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice Page 1 off 1 trial in this matter pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60 and the Sixth Amendment of the United States 2 Constitution. Assertion of Speedy Trial (Dec. 18, 2019). Defendant Aguon previously waived his 3 right to a speedy trial. Waiver of Speedy Trial (Nov. 4, 2019). 4 On January 31, 2020, the Court held a Pre-Trial Conference for this matter. Minute Entry 5 (Jan. 31, 2020). Prior to the Pre-Trial Conference, the People filed a request for a Material 6 Witness Warrant. People's Request for Material Witness Warrant (Jan. 30, 2020). In the request, 7 the People asked the Court to issue an arrest warrant for a material witness, pursuant to 8 GCA § 8 75.40(a), for purposes of securing the witness's appearance at trial. Id. 9 During the Conference, the People amended their request, and asked the Court to issue an 10 Order to Locate a Material Witness for the purposes of serving a subpoena. Minute Entry (Jan. 11 31, 2020). The Court denied the People's request. Id. After their request was denied, the People 12 orally moved to dismiss the matter against Defendant Pangelinan without prejudice..ld. 13 Defendant Pangelinan did not object to the oral Motion. Id. The Court granted the request and 14 dismissed the matter without prejudice against Defendant Pangelinan. Id. The Court then granted 15 Defendant Aguon's request to vacate Jury Selection and Trial scheduled for February 3, 2020, as 16 Defendant Aguon previously waived his right to a speedy trial; Id. 17 Discussion 18 When considering a Motion to Dismiss brought by the People under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), 19 the Court adopts the "presumption that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper 20 discharge of his duties." People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 '][ 51 (quoting U.S. v. 21 Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Association, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 22 l964)). Defendant Pangelinan did not object to the People's Motion to Dismiss without 23 prejudice. The record does not reflect any basis for finding the People's Motion was brought.in 24 bad faith or emblematic of any harassment requiring judicial or statutory protection. See 25 Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at 1149 (quoting.Rinaldi v. United States, 432 US 22, 32 (1977) ("The 26 principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against 27 28

People v. Pangelinan & Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice 1 prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government 2 moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection.")). 3 The Court must address the concern that the People raised the MotioN near the 4 commencement of trial. The Court is required to ensure that the dismissal was not employed by 5 the People as a tactic aimed at gaining an unfair advantage over the Defendant by jury shopping 6 or to lay further groundwork for a pattern of harassment. If charges are repeatedly brought but 7 then dismissed essentially on the eve of trial, the Defendant could be deprived of the opportunity

js for vindication by an acquittal. See Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at 'J[']1 53-54 (citing cases where 9 prosecutorial actions evidenced these two scenarios and supported finding the prosecution acted 10 in bad faith when seeldng dismissal).

11 Here, the Court notes that the People requested the Court issue an Order to Locate a 12 Material Witness at the Pre-Trial Conference, only three days before the commencement of Jury 13 Selection and Trial. However, at the Pre-Trial Conference, the People explained their multiple 14 previous attempts to contact the material witness with no success. After the Court denied the 15 request, the People moved to dismiss the matter without prejudice against Defendant Pangelinan 16 based on their inability to contact a material witness. While this request does come at the eve of 17 trial, the Court accepts the People's representation that they made various attempts to contact the 18 material witness and requested assistance with the Court only as a last resort. Thus, the Court 19 accepts the People's explanation for seeking dismissal near the commencement of trial. The 20 Court's examination of the record does not reveal any other possible basis for disturbing the 21 presumption of good faith. 22 When the Court has no evidence of prosecutorial bad faith or even the allegation of such 23 by Defendant, then it stands that the presumption of good faith alone "permits the [C]ourt to 24 dismiss without prejudice." People of Guam v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 *][ 29 (quoting U.S. v. 25 Olson, 846 F.2d 1103, 1114 (7th Cir. 1988)). With the good faith presumption unchallenged by 26 Defendant, the statute generally limits the Court to "two options: grant or deny the motion to 27

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

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

GUAIVI

1 2929 mg \3 Mi le 25

2 CLERK OF COURT

3 8Y:_""_¢m,,,9(.,,»mwv\¢="-=1y* LU 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO: CF0502-.19» ....¢ .,. ~a

) GPD RepOrt No.: 19-25936 6 )

vs.

)

7 )

SHANE VINCENT PANGELINAN, )

8 aka Shay Shay Pangelinan, ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: PEOPLE'S ) MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT DOB: 08/22/1988, 9 ) PREJUDICE )

10 DEFENDANT. )

)

11 MARVIN QUINATA AGUON, )

DOB: 02/22/1970, )

12 )

)

13 DEFENDANT. > )

14 Introduction

15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on January 31, 2020 for a Pre- 16 Trial Conference. Defendant Shane Vincent Pangelinan ("Defendant Pangelinan") was present 17 and represented by Attorney Jeffrey Moots. Defendant Marvin Qui rata Aguon ("Defendant 18 Aguon") was present and represented by Attorney Zachary Taimanglo of the Public Defender's 19 Office. Attorneys Sean Brown and Alysa Draper-Dehart were present for the People of Guam 20 (the "People"). At the Pre-Trial Conference, the People raised an oral Motion to Dismiss the 21 matter w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t P a n g e l i n a n . T h e C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e M o t i o n . T h e 22 Court further vacated the Jury Selection and Trial date in the matter set for February 3, 2020. 23 The Court now issues this Decision and Order memorializing its oral ruling. 24 Background 25 Defendant Pangelinan is charged with Theft of an Automobile (As a 2"d Degree Felony). 26 Indictment (Sept. 24, 2019). Defendant Aguon is charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor 27 Vehicle (As a Misdemeanor). Id. Defendant Pangelinan previously asserted his right to"aspeedy 28

People v. Pangelinan & Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice Page 1 off 1 trial in this matter pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60 and the Sixth Amendment of the United States 2 Constitution. Assertion of Speedy Trial (Dec. 18, 2019). Defendant Aguon previously waived his 3 right to a speedy trial. Waiver of Speedy Trial (Nov. 4, 2019). 4 On January 31, 2020, the Court held a Pre-Trial Conference for this matter. Minute Entry 5 (Jan. 31, 2020). Prior to the Pre-Trial Conference, the People filed a request for a Material 6 Witness Warrant. People's Request for Material Witness Warrant (Jan. 30, 2020). In the request, 7 the People asked the Court to issue an arrest warrant for a material witness, pursuant to 8 GCA § 8 75.40(a), for purposes of securing the witness's appearance at trial. Id. 9 During the Conference, the People amended their request, and asked the Court to issue an 10 Order to Locate a Material Witness for the purposes of serving a subpoena. Minute Entry (Jan. 11 31, 2020). The Court denied the People's request. Id. After their request was denied, the People 12 orally moved to dismiss the matter against Defendant Pangelinan without prejudice..ld. 13 Defendant Pangelinan did not object to the oral Motion. Id. The Court granted the request and 14 dismissed the matter without prejudice against Defendant Pangelinan. Id. The Court then granted 15 Defendant Aguon's request to vacate Jury Selection and Trial scheduled for February 3, 2020, as 16 Defendant Aguon previously waived his right to a speedy trial; Id. 17 Discussion 18 When considering a Motion to Dismiss brought by the People under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), 19 the Court adopts the "presumption that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper 20 discharge of his duties." People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 '][ 51 (quoting U.S. v. 21 Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Association, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 22 l964)). Defendant Pangelinan did not object to the People's Motion to Dismiss without 23 prejudice. The record does not reflect any basis for finding the People's Motion was brought.in 24 bad faith or emblematic of any harassment requiring judicial or statutory protection. See 25 Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at 1149 (quoting.Rinaldi v. United States, 432 US 22, 32 (1977) ("The 26 principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against 27 28

People v. Pangelinan & Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice 1 prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government 2 moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection.")). 3 The Court must address the concern that the People raised the MotioN near the 4 commencement of trial. The Court is required to ensure that the dismissal was not employed by 5 the People as a tactic aimed at gaining an unfair advantage over the Defendant by jury shopping 6 or to lay further groundwork for a pattern of harassment. If charges are repeatedly brought but 7 then dismissed essentially on the eve of trial, the Defendant could be deprived of the opportunity

js for vindication by an acquittal. See Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at 'J[']1 53-54 (citing cases where 9 prosecutorial actions evidenced these two scenarios and supported finding the prosecution acted 10 in bad faith when seeldng dismissal).

11 Here, the Court notes that the People requested the Court issue an Order to Locate a 12 Material Witness at the Pre-Trial Conference, only three days before the commencement of Jury 13 Selection and Trial. However, at the Pre-Trial Conference, the People explained their multiple 14 previous attempts to contact the material witness with no success. After the Court denied the 15 request, the People moved to dismiss the matter without prejudice against Defendant Pangelinan 16 based on their inability to contact a material witness. While this request does come at the eve of 17 trial, the Court accepts the People's representation that they made various attempts to contact the 18 material witness and requested assistance with the Court only as a last resort. Thus, the Court 19 accepts the People's explanation for seeking dismissal near the commencement of trial. The 20 Court's examination of the record does not reveal any other possible basis for disturbing the 21 presumption of good faith. 22 When the Court has no evidence of prosecutorial bad faith or even the allegation of such 23 by Defendant, then it stands that the presumption of good faith alone "permits the [C]ourt to 24 dismiss without prejudice." People of Guam v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 *][ 29 (quoting U.S. v. 25 Olson, 846 F.2d 1103, 1114 (7th Cir. 1988)). With the good faith presumption unchallenged by 26 Defendant, the statute generally limits the Court to "two options: grant or deny the motion to 27

28 People v. PangeliIzan & Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice 1 dismiss the indictment." Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at <II 64 (quoting U.S. v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 2 351 (5th Cir. 1982)). 3 Importantly, no prejudice will attach here by the Court granting the Motion. The law in 4 Guam does not generally authorize "trial courts to sue sponge dismiss indictments with 5 prejudice" when considering an 8 GCA § 80.70(a) Motion. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 at '1[ 69. 6 Any collateral prejudice suffered by Defendant due to a dismissal without prejudice may be 7 cured in a separate expungement proceeding when appropriate. The Court in granting the instant 8 Motion does not foreclose this remedy. 9 Because there is no basis for abandoning the presumption of prosecutorial good faith, the 10 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice against Defendant Pangelinan is GRANTED. 11 Conclusion and Order 12 Based on t he r easons pr ov ided abov e, t he Cour t her eby ORDERS CF0502-19 13 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE only as to Defendant Pangelinan pursuant to 8 GCA § 14 80.70 upon the People's voluntary dismissal. The Court vacates any conditional release orders 15 and restrictions which Defendant Pangelinan is ordered to follow in this case. All subsequent 16 pleadings and other documents filed in this matter shall only reference Defendant Aguon. 17 A Criminal Trial Setting will be held on March 10, 2020, at 11 A.M. for Defendant 18 Aguon.

19 FEB 1 3 zcza

20 SO ORDERED this Q Mme pro tune January 31, 2020.

21 22

23 HON iAR1A CENZON SERVICE-VM °0"!"T Box

24 JUDG ERIOR COURT OF GUAM I acknowledge the copy of the original hem was placed In the -_ 25

26 FQBEJ a 202un,...=_i£1vn<~ 27 'a

"

28 E; -Jeliuiit Qieés; S §1Qourlof Guam gI ".1a.- -..I2.. s.'..

People v. Pangelinan &Aguon, CF0502-19 D&O re: People's Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice

People v. Pangelinan, S.V. and Aguon, M.Q., (superctguam 2020).

Pincite

People v. Pangelinan, S.V. and Aguon, M.Q. (People v. Pangelinan, S.V. and Aguon, M.Q.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related