*--
i `L E
T " a
E 1 l,=.rr
max l gt:
1
2 IT Fifi 52=
3 $UPERiz IR C-'sl
v
5 Q..l1§
4
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
6 ) CRIMINAL
CRIMINALCASE CASENO. NO. CM0282-21 CM0282-21
7 7 - PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) GPD Report No.
No. 21-18208
21-18208
))
8 vs. )
9 ) )) DECISION
DECISION & ORDER
10 BRIAN WILLIAM WILLIAM PAYNE,
PAYNE, )) RE. MOTION MOTION TOTO DISMISS
DISMISS FOR
10 ) UNNECESSARY
UNNECESSARY DELAYDELAY(8
(8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§
DOB: DOB:11/09/1982 11/09/1982 80.70(b)) ANDVIOLATION 80.70(b)) AND VIOLATION OF SPEEDY 11 11 ) TRIAL RIGHTS ))
12 Defendant.
)
13 13 )
14 14 This matter came came before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable Alberto
Alberto E. Tolentino on
on March
March 25,
25, 2025,
2025, for aa
15 15 motion motion hearing. DefendantBrian hearing. Defendant BrianWilliam William Payne ("Defendant")
("Defendant") was
was present
present with
with counsel
counsel Public
16 16 Defender Defender Adam Adam Gunkel.
Gunkel. Assistant Attorney Attorney General
General Kathleen O'Neil
O'Neil was
was present
present for the People
17 17
x
18 18 of Guam ("People"). The Defendant previously filed Guam ("People"). filed aa Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary Delay
19 19 (8 G.C.A.
(8 80.70(b))and G.C.A. §§80.70(b)) andViolation ViolationofofSpeedy
SpeedyTrial
TrialRights
RightsononFebruary
February17,
17,2025.
2025. On
On March
March 25,
25,
20 1 Following the hearing, the court 2025, the court heard 2025, the heard oral oral argument
argumentfrom
from the
the Defendant
Defendant only.
0nly.1 Following the the court 21 took took the matter under advisement advisement pursuant
pursuanttotoSupreme
SupremeCourt
Courtof
ofGuam
GuamAdministrative
Administrative Rule 06-
22 22 001, CVR 7.1(e)(6)(A) 001, CVR 7.l(e)(6)(A) and and CR
CR1.1
1.1 of
ofthe
the Local
LocalRules
Rules ofofthe
theSuperior
Superior Court
Court of
ofGuam.
Guam. Having
23
24 duly considered the Defendant's Defendant's brief
briefand
and oral
oral argument,
argument, and the
the applicable
applicable law, the court now
25 25 issues thisDecision issues this Decisionand andOrder
OrderDENYING
DENYING the
the Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary
26 26 Delay Delay (8 (8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b))
80.70(b)) and Violation of and Violation of Speedy
Speedy Trial
Trial Rights.
Rights.
27 27
28 28 11 The The court denied the court denied the People's People's request
requestto
to file
file an untimely
untimely opposition to the the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Dismiss. See
See
Mot. Hr'g Hr'gMims.
Mins. at 11:13:50
:13:50 -- 15:13AM (Mar. 25,25, 2025).
2025).
Decision & Decision & Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motionto
toDismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary Delay (8 Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation 80.70(b)) and Violation of of Speedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People People v. Payne, CM0282.-2 CM0282-21l
Page l1 of
of 10
BACKGROUND
I
2 July 31, On July 31,2021,
2021,the
theDefendant
Defendantwas
was charged
charged forfor
thethe offenses
offenses of:of:
(1)(1)DRIVING
DRIVINGWHILE
WHILE
3 3 IMPAIRED IMPAIRED (As (AsaaMisdemeanor),
Misdemeanor); and (2) CRIMINAL and (2) CRIMINAL MISCHIEF MISCHIEF(As
(Asa aMisdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). See
See
4 . I ..
Magistrate's Con Maglstrate's Compl. (July 31, pl. (July 31, 2021).
2021). That
That same
same day,
day, the
the court
court released
released him on
on condltlons
conditions and
and
5 appointed the the Public
Public Defender
Defender Service
Service Corporation
Corporation to
to represent
represent him in this case.
case.See
SeeMagistrate's
Magistrate's
6
7 Hr'g Hr'g Mims.
Mins. at 3:55:20PM
3:55:20PM (July 31,
31, 2021).
2021). The
The Defendant
Defendantfiled
filed his
his written
written waiver
waiver of his right to
7
8 speedy trial on on August
August 19,
19, 2021,
2021, and
and subsequently
subsequently waived at
at arraignment
arraignment on August 27. See See
9 9 Hr'g Mims.
Arraignment Hr'g at 9:26:04AM Mins. at 9:26:04AM (Aug. 27, 27, 2021).
10 Following Followingthe
the hearing,
hearing, the
the People declared the Defendant Defendant legally
legally ineligible
ineligible to
to participate
participate
1II1 the Driving in the Driving While While Impaired ("DWI")Treatment Impaired ("DWI") TreatmentCourt Courtbut
buteligible
eligibletotoparticipate
participate under
under
12 12
13 traditional DWI DVVI First
First Offender
Offender guidelines. See Decl.
Deel. (Sept.
(Sept. 3,
3, 2021).
2021). The
Thecourt
court scheduled
scheduled the jury
14 14 selection selection and and trial for
for this
this case
case on
on January 12,2022.
January 12, 2022.See
SeeCriminal
CriminalTrial
Trial Scheduling
Scheduling Order (Sept.
15 15 20, 2021 2021).
). Due to ongoing plea
plea negotiations
negotiations between
between the
the parties,
parties, the court
court vacated this date
date for
16 jury selection selection and
and trial, as well
well as,
as, other
other trial dates
dates subsequently issued in subsequently issued in its its Amended
Amended Criminal
17 17 18 Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order.
18
19 19 Recently, the the Defendant filed a Motion Motion to
to Compel
Compel Discovery
Discoveryon
onFebruary
February 12,
12, 2025. Five
2025. Five
20 20 days later, the court issued later, the issued new new dates,
dates, scheduling
schedulingjury
jury selection
selection and
andtrial
trial for
for May 7, 2025, at
21 1:00PM. 1 See 2nd 2nd Amended Criminal
Criminal Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order (Feb. 17, 17, 2025).
2025). However, the
the
22 Defendant filed his Defendant filed his Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismissfor
forUnnecessary
UnnecessaryDelay
Delay(8(8GG.C.A.
.C.A. §§80.70(b))
80. 70(b)) and Violation
and Violation
23
24 of of Speedy Speedy Trial
Trial Rights
Rights ("Motion
("MotiontotoDismiss")
Dismiss")that
thatsame
sameday.
day. Because
Because the
the opposition
opposition filing
24
25 25 deadline lapsed, lapsed, the
thePeople
Peoplefiled
filed its Good Faith
Faith Request
Requestfor
for Leave
Leave to
to File an Untimely
Untimely Opposition
26 26 Brief to Defendant's Briefto Defendant's Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss on
on March
March 24,
24, 2025.
27 27
28 28
Decision & Decision &Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motionto
toDismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
Delay (8 G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation 80.70(b and Violation of of Speedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne, Clv[0282-21 CM0282-21
Page 2 of 10
During the motion hearing hearing on March 25, 2025, 2025, the
the court
court denied
deniedthe
thePeople's
People's request for
l 2 2 leave of ofcourt
court to oppose
oppose the Motion
Motion to Dismiss absent
absent aa showing
showingof
of good cause.
cause. See
SeeMot.
Mot. Hr'
Hr'g
3 at 11:13:50 Mins. at 11:13:50 -- l5:13AM 25, 2025).
15:13AM (Mar. 25, 2025). Following Followingthe
theDefendant's
Defendant'soral
oralargument
argument in
in the
the
4 . . .
motion hearing, motlon hearing, the the court
court took
took the
the matter under advisement.
advisement.
5 DISCUSSION
6
7 The Defendant argues that thatthe
theamount
amountof
ofdelay
delay in
in this
this case
caseviolated
violated his Sixth
Sixth Amendment
8 8 right to aa speedy Mal.
trial. Because
Because of
ofthe
the delay,
delay, the
the Defendant
Defendant now seeks
seeks the dismissal
dismissal of his
his case
case
9 9 under 88 GCA under 80.70(b). "If GCA §§ 80.70(b). "Ifthere thereisisunnecessary
unnecessary delay
delayin
inbringing
bringingaadefendant
defendant to
to trial,
trial, the
the court,
court,
10 10 on its own own motion, may dismiss the indictment, dismiss the indictment, information informationor
orcomplaint."
complaint."88GCA
GCA § 80.70(b).
11 11 Before Before the the court
court can
can dismiss this case
case under
under 88 GCA
GCA §§ 80.70(b),
80.70(b), itit must
must first
first determine
determine whether
whether
12 12
13 13 the delay in in this case was unnecessary unnecessaryenough
enoughtotofind
findaaconstitutional
constitutionalviolation
violation of
of the Defendant's
14 14 right to speedy trial.
15 15 The Sixth
Sixth Amendment protects the Amendment protects the right right to
to a speedy
speedy and public trial
and public trial in all
all criminal
criminal
16 16 prosecutions against the the accused.
accused.See
SeeU.S.
U.S.Const.
Const.amend.
amend.VI.
VI.For
For U.S.
U.S. citizens residing in in Guam,
17 17 "[t]he "[t]he Sixth Sixth Amendment
Amendment to
to the
the United
United States
States Constitution, incorporatedby Constitution, incorporated bythe theOrganic
OrganicAct
Act of
18 18
19 19 Guam, guaranteesthe Guam, guarantees theaccused accusedthe
the'right
'righttotoaaspeedy
speedyand
andpublic
publictrial."'
trial."' People
People v.
v. Mendiola, 2023
20 Guam 12,r'H21 Guam 12 (citingU.S.
21 (citing U.S.Const.
Const.amend.
amend. VI.,4848U.S.C.A.
VI.; 1421b(g),88GCA U.S.C.A.§§1421b(g); 1.11(a)
GCA §§ 1.1 (2005)).
l(a) (2005)).
21 The Guam
Guam Supreme has previously determined Supreme Court has determined whether a person's constitutional constitutional
22 right to speedy trial was violated when considering, speedy trial considering, as asaawhole,
whole,the
thefollowing
following factors in Barker v.
v.
23 23 Wingo: (1) Wingo: (1) the the length
length of
ofthe
the delay,
delay; (2)
(2)the cause of
the cause ofthe
the delay,
delay; (3)
(3)the
thedefendant's
defendant's assertion
assertion of
ofhis
his
24 24
25 25 right right to a speedy tn'al, (4) the presence or trial; and (4) or absence absenceof
of prejudice resulting from from the delay.People
People
26 26 v. Mendiola, ,r 13 Mendiola, 2015 Guam 26, 1[ 13 (quoting (quoting Barker v. Wings, Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 530-33 (1972)).
(1972)). This
27
28
Decision & Decision & Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motionto
toDismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
Delay (8 G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b))
80. and Violation
and Violation of
of Speedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People People v. Payne,
Payne, CM0282-21l Page Page 3 of
of 10
will now review the Barker factors to determine whether Defendant Payne's court will constitutional Payne's constitutional
1
2 2 trial was violated.
right to aa speedy trial violated.
3 A. The Length of TheLength the Delay
of the
4 The first Barker factor, the court factor, which the court must review, isis how mustreview, long of aa delay how long exists in delay exists
5 Defendant Payne's Defendant case. "The Payne's case. the delay length of the
"The length is measured delay is the point measured from the of arrest point of or
arrest or
6 7 indictment until until trial."
trial." People v. Natch, 2013 Guam 7 if v. Naich, 1]50 50(citing
(citing People
People v.
v. Flores, 2009 Guam
7
8 22 ,r1143). Untilthere 43). Until thereisisdelay delay that
thatisispresumptively
presumptivelyprejudicial, inquiry into or for inquiry
need for no need is no
there is
prejudicial, there
9 530. The more serious or complex at 530.
9 factors. See Barker, 407 U.S. at balancing of the other Barker factors.See
10 the greater the the charge, the length of the length delay that of delay will be tolerated. Id. at that will 530-31.
at 530-3 l
11 II While While there
there isis no
no exact
exactamount
amount of
oftime
timethat
thatconstitutes
constitutes as the Guam prejudicial, the as prejudicial, Supreme Guam Supreme
12 12
13 13 Court has previously found delays of ofsix
six years
years and
and four
four years
years to
to be
be prejudicial
prejudicial enough
enough to
to warrant
warrant
14 14 examination of the other Barker factors.See factors. See Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r,r Guam 22 W 43-44,
43-44; see also People v.
v.
1155 1999 Guam 8 ,r'U24.
Mendiola, 1999 24.However, However, the
theCourt
Court has
hasalso
also held delay did eighteen-month delay aneighteen-month
thatan
held that
16 16 not rise to the level level of
ofaaconstitutional
constitutional violation
violationwhen
whenmuch
much of
ofthat
that time
time was
was attributable
attributable to the
17 17 18 defendant.See Natch, 2013 Guam defendant. See Naich, if 57.
Guam 77 'H 57.
18
19 19 The Defendant Defendant argues that the argues that the delay
delay of
of "over
"overfour
fouryears"
years"isisunnecessary,
unnecessary, unreasonable, unreasonable,
20 20 and presumptively presumptively prejudicial prejudicial in
in light
light of
of the De
de minimum
minimum nature of his offenses. Mot. Dismiss nature of at Dismiss at
21 3 (Feb. 17, 17, 2025).
2025). In
In this
this misdemeanor case, the misdemeanor case, charging via Magistrate's arrest and charging
the point of arrest
22 Complaint was July July of 2021.
2021. The court
court set
set the
the matter for
for trial
trial on
on three
three separate
separate dates before the 23
24 parties eventually agreed to vacating vacating each
each date:
date: January 2022, May 12, 2022;
January 12, 2022; and 18, 2022,
May 18, May 7,
and May
24
25 25 2025. Because this case 2025. Because case has hasnot
notgone to trial, the court notes that it has been approximately three gone to
26 26 (3) years years and
and seven
seven (7) months
months between the
the time he was arrested
arrestedand
andthe
thefiling
filing of
of his Motion to
his Motion
27
28
Decision Decision & & Order Re. Motion
Order Re. Motion to
to Dismiss for
for Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
Unnecessary Delay G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation of and Violation of Speedy
Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne,
Payne, CM0282-2
CM0282-21l
Page 4 of
of 10
Dismiss. Therefore, Dismiss. the court Therefore, the court finds that that the
the length of
of this
this delay
delay isispresumptively
presumptively prejudicial prejudicial
1
2 enough to warrant warrant further
furtherreview
review of the other Barker factors factors..
3 B. The TheCause
Cause of
of the
the Delay
4 Under the second Barker factor, the court must mustreview
review the
the People's
People's reasons
reasons for the delay
5 in bringing the Defendant to to trial.
trial. In comparison
comparison to
to "[a] deliberate
deliberate attempt
attempt to delay trial in in order
6
to hamper the defense,"
hamper the defense," a more more neutral
neutralreason
reasonfor
forthe
thePeople's
People's delay
delay is weighed less heavily but but
7
8 still requires requires consideration.
consideration. Mendiola,
Mendiola, 1999
1999 Guam
Guam 8,1]61
61 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531).
9 As As mentioned
mentioned earlier, the court denied denied the
the People's
People's request to
to file an
an untimely opposition
10 to the Motion Motion to Dismiss. Despite the the People's
People's failure to
to timely
timely file
fileits
itsopposition
oppositionin
inthis
this case,
case, the
11 II court still has an an obligation
obligation to analyze the merits of ofthe it. 2 the issue before it.2
12 12
13 In this case, the court originally originally scheduled
scheduled jury
jury selection
selectionand
and trial
trial for
forJanuary
January 12,
12, 2022.
2022.
14 14 See Criminal Criminal Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order
Order (Sept. 20,
20, 2021).
2021 ByBy agreement
agreement of
ofthe
the parties,
parties, the
the court
court
15 15 that trial
vacated that trial date date at
at the
the pre-trial
pre-trial conference
conference on December 28, 2021, noting the 2021, noting the Defendant's 16 eligibility for for DWI
DWIFirst
FirstOffender
OffenderGuidelines.
Guidelines. See
See Pre-Trial
Pre-TrialConference
Conference Mims.
Mins. at
at 9:18:04AM
9:18:04AM
17
(Dec. (Dec. 18, 18, 2021).
2021). On
On January
January 27,
27, 2022, the court issued 2022, the issued an an amended
amendedCTSO
CTSO after no movement
18
19 towards a DWI DWI First
First Offender
Offenderoffer.
offer.See
SeeFurther
FurtherProceedings
ProceedingsMims.
Mins.atat33:07:02PM (Jan.
(Jan. 14, 2022).
20 The court then scheduled scheduledjury
juryselection
selection and
andtrial
trialfor
for May 18, 2022.
2022.See
SeeCriminal
Criminal Trial
Trial Scheduling
21 Order (Jan. 27, 2022).
(Jan. 27, 2022). However, the the court
court again vacated jury selection selection and
and trial at
at the pre-trial
22 conference on on May
May 3,
3, 2022,
2022, due
due to ongoing
ongoing plea
plea negotiations
negotiations between
between the
the parties
parties from
from that
that date
date
23 23 24 through September 1,1, 2023.
through September 2023.See See Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Conference
Conference Mins.
Mims.atat 9:51:42AM
9:51:42AM (May
(May 3,
3, 2022).
2022).
24
25 25
26 26
27 27 22 In Petition of Quitugua In Petition Quitugua v.
v. Flores,
Flores, the Supreme Court Court of
ofGuam
Guam held
held that
that "the
"the failure
failure to
to file
file a written opposition, the filing filing of a notice non-opposition, or the disregard of untimely filed papers" does not relieve the lower court of of its its
28 28 obligation obligation to consider consider the merits ofa motion motion before rendering its decision. Petition ofQuitugua Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ,r,r W 27-28.
Decision & Decision & Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motionto
to Disiniss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
Delay (8 G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation 80.70(b)) and Violation of of Speedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People v.
v. Payne, CM0282-21
CM0282-21
Page Page 5 of
of 10
Between 2023 Between 2023 and the Defendant's Motionto Defendant's Motion to Compel CompelDiscovery
Discoveryfiled
filedon
onFebruary
February 15,
15, 2025, there
1
22 was no activity in this case.
3 The Defendant September 3, 2021, which Defendant argued that the People had been negligent since September 44 was when .
when itit filed Defendant'sel1g1b1l1ty theDefendant's
filedthe
.... for a plea offer
eligibility for offer under under the
the DWI
DWI First
First Offender
Offender
.
5 guidelines. See Mot. Dismiss at 4.
4. The
The court disagrees
disagrees that
that the
the People's
People's negligence, if
if any, dates
6 7 2021 when the court's back to 2021 court's record record indicates
indicates that plea negotiations between both parties were 7
88 early as December 28, 2021, ongoing as early 2021; and then then resumed
resumed between
between May
May 3,
3, 2022,
2022, through
through
9 September 1, September 1, 2023. Although the the Defendant
Defendant was
was deemed
deemedeligible
eligiblefor
foraaplea
pleaoffer
offerunder
underthe
theDVVI
DWI
10 First Offender guidelinessince Offender guidelines September3,3,2021, since September 2021,the the court
court sees
sees that
that majority of
ofthe
the delay
delay in
in this
this
11 11 case could be attributed case attributed toto the the parties'
parties'negotiations
negotiationsand
andformalization
formalizationof
ofaaDWI
DWI First Offender
12 12
13 13 plea agreement.
14 At tthe mot motion hearing,
ion hea ing, the Defendant he D ef nt also
ls o informed
or med the
t he court
r t about
b ou t a "drop in
in
15 15 communication" as communication" as a cause for the the delay.
delay. See
See Mot.
Mot. Hr'
Hr'gg Mins. at 11:25:10
Mins.at 11:25:10 - 25:20AM 25 :20AM (Mar.
(Mar. 25,
16 16 2025). However, he could not provide evidence evidence as
as to
to whom
whomthe
the court
court can
can attribute
attribute fault over the
17 17 18 Therefore, the court finds drop in communication towards. Therefore, finds that the the cause
cause for the
the delay weighs
18
19 19 against the Defendant.
Defendant.
20 20 C. The TheDefendant's
Defendant's Assertion
Assertion of
of his
his Right to a Speedy Trial Speedy Trial
21 This next factor calls
calls this
this court
court to
to consider
consider the of speedy assertion of
the Defendant's assertion speedy trial.
trial. In
22 order to successfully argue argue that
that aa Sixth
Sixth Amendment violation has Amendment violation has occurred, a defendant bears the 23 23
24 responsibility to proactively assert a speedy trial claim. See Mendiola, Mendiola, 1999
1999 Guam ~ 29 (citing
Guam 'll
24
25 Barker, 407 U.S. at 529). "[F]ailure Barker, "[F]ailure to to assert
assert the
the right will make it difficult for a defendant to
26 26 prove that he was prove was denied denied aa speedy
speedy trial."
trial." Barker, Even with a defendant's Earker, 407 U.S. at 532. Even defendant's 27 . . . . . 1 . u n u assertion of speedy speedy dual,
trial, which is entitled to to strong evidentiary weight, weight, the
the court
court must
must exercise
exercise its
its
28
Decision && Order Decision Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motionto
toDismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary
Unnecessary Delay (8 G.C.A.
Delay (8 G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation 80.70(b)) and Violation of ofSpeedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne, CM0282-2l CM0282-21
Page Page 6 of
of 10
1 judicial discretion, discretion, viewing that
that assertion in light of ofthe
the defendants
defendant's other
other conduct. See Flores, conduct. See
2 Guam~ 2009 Guam United States 11 47 (citing United States v.v. Loud Hawk, Hawk, 474
474 U.S. 302,
302, 314
314 (1986)).
(1986))
3 never asserted his statutory Here, the Defendant never statutory or or constitutional
constitutionalrights
rightsto
to speedy
speedy trial.
trial. At
At
4 arraignment, he arraignment, hewaived waived his
hisright
right to
to speedy
speedytrial onthe
trial on therecord
recordafter
afterfiling
filing his
his written
written waiver
waiver eight
5 days prior.
(8) days prior. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, the Defendant Defendant argued
arguedthat
thathe
hedid
didnot
not"forever
"forever waive" his right to waive" his to aa
6
speedy trial.
trial. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531.
7
8 waiver, the Despite his waiver, the Defendant Defendant assumed
assumed "there for his "there would be a trial for his charges charges or
or at
at aa
9 minimum some minimum some activity from the the courts
courts and prosecution."
prosecution." Mot. Dismiss 5. When Dismiss at 5. When the
the court
court
10 10 vacated the scheduled dates for jury vacated the jury selection selection and trial,
trial, it
it had
had done
done so
so without
without objection
objection from
from both
11 II parties as as they
they noted
notedthat
thata aformal
formalplea
pleawas place.See
wasininplace. SeePre-Trial Pre-TrialConference
ConferenceMins.
Mims.atate:
9: 18:04AM
l8:04AM
12 12
13 1 (Dec. (Dec. 28, 28, 2021),
2021); see also Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference
Conference Mins.
Mins. at
at 9:51 :42AM (May 3,
9:51:42AM 3, 2022).
14 14 Since his waiver waiverat
at arraignment,
arraignment, the
the Defendant
Defendant has
has had
had the opportunity to assert his right 15 15 to speedy trial if ifthat
that was how he intended his his case
case to
to move
move forward.
forward. Rather,
Rather, he
he desired
desired to
to resolve
resolve
16 16 this case case without
without going
going to trial. In
In light
light of
ofthe
theDefendant's
Defendant'sother
otherconduct,
conduct, the
the court
court finds
finds that
that his
17 17 failure to to assert
assert his statutory
statutory or
or constitutional
constitutional right
right to speedy trial
trial weighs
weighs against
against him.
18
19 19 D.
D. The
ThePresence
Presence or
or Absence
Absence of Prejudice Resulting from the Delay
20 The last factor for for the
the court to review
review is
is whether
whether the
the Defendant
Defendant suffered
suffered any
any prejudice due
due
21 . . , . . . . .
to the delay in in this
thls case.
case. An
An "[i]nordinate
"[1]nord1nate delay
delay between public charge between public charge and and tr1a1"
trial" may
may (1)
(1) prejudice
prejudice
22 22 "a "a defense defense on the the merits"-such
merits"-such as
asthrough
through the
the deterioration of crucial unavailability of crucial evidence, unavailability of 23 23 24 witnesses, or witnesses, or subversion subversionof
ofthe
thedefendant's
defendant'sability
abilitytotoprepare
preparefor
fortrial-or
trial-or (2) seriously
seriously prejudice
prejudice
24
25 25 "defendant's "defendant's liberty, liberty, ... disrupt
. disrupthis
hisemployment,
employment,drain
drainhis
hisfinancial
financialresources,
resources, curtail
curtail his
his
26 associations, subject him to to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and as and his friends."
27 27 People v.
v. Corpus,
Corpuz, 2019
2019 Guam ~ 25;
Guam 1 11 25, United
United States
States v.v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2016)
2016)
28
Decision & Decision & Order Re. Motion Order Re. Motion to Dismiss for to Dismiss for Unnecessary UnnecessaryDelay
Delay(8(8G.C.A. 80.70(b))
G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b )) and Violation of and Violation of Speedy Trial Rights Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne, CM0282-21 CM0282-21
Page Page 7 of
of 10
(quoting United United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 340-41 v. Taylor, 340-41 (1988))
(1988)) (explaining
(explaining prejudice
prejudice to
to defendant
defendant
1
2 may come come in in trial prejudice or non-trial prejudice);
prejudice), People v. Aromin, ,r Because Guam 33 1[24.
Aron in, 2014 Guam Because
3 this case did not go to to trial,
trial, the
the court
court will
will examine
examine the existence of any non-trial prejudice against 4 Defendant Payne.
5 to the As to the offenses
offenses charged
charged in
in this
this case,
case, the
the Defendant
Defendant argued
argued that:
that: (1) memories of
of
6
7 fade; (2) his anxiety will grow;
witnesses will fade, and possible alternative grow, (3) evidence and alternative suspects will
8 lost; (4) and it is more likely that be lost, that officers will memorize memorize their reports ifif called their reports called to to testify.
testify. See
9 Mot. Dismiss at 6.
6. Although
Although these are
are concerns that the
the Guam Supreme Court has recognized in 10 both Aromin Corpuz, the Defendant has not shown this court that these concerns are present Aron and Corpus,
11 in this case, especially as the parties parties indicated
indicated at the
the motion hearing that they are still working 12 12
13 1 of trial.
towards a resolution short of trial. See See Mot.
Mot. Hr'g Mims.
Mins. at
at 11:12:25
11:12:25 -12:30AM (Mar. 25, 2025).
- 12:30AM (Mar.
14 14 At the motion hearing, the Defendant Defendant did
did address
address that in this case led to prejudice that the delay in
15 in the form of of adverse career consequences;
consequences, specifically, specifically, losing
losing his
his military
military base
base access
access that was
16 16 required for required for his his job.
job. See
See Mot.
Mot. Hr'g Mins. at
Hr'gMims. at 11:3
11 :31l :04-
:04 31 :40AM
:40AM (Mar.
(Mar. 25,
25, 2025).
2025). Even
Even with two
17
of the Defendant
employers of Defendant listed listed in the court's
court's record,
record, itit remains unclear unclear how much
much this
this case has
18 18
19 19 prejudiced his ability to to gain or maintain
maintain employment.
employment. For example, the Defendant provided no
20 20 information about his his employment history since he was was charged,
charged, his current
current employment
employment status
status
21 if he still needs military with either employer, or if military base access to work today. Without more, the 22 court is not not convinced
convinced that the
the Defendant's
Defendant's ability to work has been so prejudiced by the delay to 23 23 24 24 warrant his his case's
case's dismissal.
25 Prejudice from oppressive oppressive pretrial
pretrial incarceration is nonexistent in this case given that the 26 be Defendant has been released Defendant has released since since 2021.
2021. While the
the Defendant
Defendant also
also stated
stated that this
this case is
is
27 preventing him from moving moving to
to the
the mainland
mainlandU.S.,
U.S., the
the court
court never
never restricted
restricted his
his ability
ability to travel
28
Decision && Order Decision Order Re.
Re. Motion
MotiontotoDismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary Delay (8 Unnecessary Delay G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b))
(8 G.C.A. and Violation 80.70(b )) and Violation of ofSpeedy Trial Rights
Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne, CM0282-21I Page Page 8 of
of 10
off island when off when itit released him him on
on conditions
conditions in
in 2021. It is also noteworthy that the Defendant has 2021. It
1
2 since filed aa waiver waiver of
of appearance
appearance at
at all
all hearings,
hearings, including
including entering
entering a plea
plea and
and accepting
accepting
3 ofsentence.
imposition of imposition See Def.'s sentence. See Def. 'sWaiver Waiver(May
(May6,6, 2025).
2025). Therefore,
Therefore, the
the court
court finds
finds that
that this factor
4 . .
weighs against welghs against the Defendant.
5 Because majority of the factors under Barker weigh majority of weigh against against the Defendant,
Defendant, the court finds 6
7 of his constitutional right that there was no violation of right to speedy speedy trial.
trial. Furthermore, the court finds
8 that the delay in this case was not unnecessary unnecessary and does not
not warrant dismissal of
of the case.
9 \\ 10 \\ 11 II \\ 12 12
13 \\
14 14 \\ \\
15 15 \ \\ 16 16 \\ 17
\\ 18 18
19 19 v \\
20 \\ \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23
24 24 \ \\
25 \\ \\
26 26 m \\ 27 27 \\ \\ 28
Decision & Decision &Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss for
for Unnecessary Delay (8 Unnecessary Delay G,C.A. § (8 G.C.A. 80.70(b))
§ 80.70(b of Speedy Violation of
andViolation )) and Trial Rights Speedy Trial Rights
People v. Payne,CM0282-21I v. Payne, Page 9 of 10
CONCLUSION
1
2 For the reasons above, the court hereby DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
3 Unnecessary Unnecessary Delay Delay (8
(8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 80.70(b)) and Violation 80.70(b)) and Violation of of Speedy
Speedy Trial
Trial Rights.
Rights.
4
5 A Further Proceedings is scheduled scheduled before
before this
this court
court on
on July
July 23,
23, 2025, at 10:30AM.
6
7 JUN 1 0O2025
2025
SO ORDERED S0 ORDERED this
this - - - - - - - - - - -
8
9
10 10 _-="'
.,- --- ~ -..-- - ~~~.
..::.... ·,
' ,:' -
11 11 ::' I
~i.U.t:;.b;;";~:i;"------:-:-~~--- ;
12 '/ /I 12 HONORABLE ALBERTOlt~
ALBERTUE; TOLENTINO
13 Superior Court of Guam
Judge, Superior
14 14
15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20
21
22
23 23
24 24
25
26
27.
28 28
Decision & Decision & Order Order Re.
Re. Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss for Unnecessary Dismiss for UnnecessaryDelay (8 G.C.A.
Delay (8 G.C.A. §
§ 80.70(b))
80.70(b and Violation of and Violation ofSpeedy
Speedy Trial
Trial Rights
Rights
People v. Payne, CM0282-21 CM0282-2 l
Page 10
10 of
of 10