People v. Quintanilla, Jr., R.

Opinion

I I

:B-#1 .

.Jr '1

s la..

=2"%i2>'*'*~{r+"'!

J .

CSURT

2 QE so §"i

l ZBIBDEC3 I PH 2=~2l 2 CLERK UF BDURT

3 3V5

4 5 6

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8

9 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0328-19 10 vs.

ROKE MQENDIOLA QUINTANILLA, JR., DECISION AND ORDER 12 DOB: 10/07/1979

13 Defendant. 14 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on September 26, 2019, upon 17 the Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Forfeiture of Bail Posted by Roke San Nicolas 18 Quintanilla tiled August 19, 2019. Defendant Roke Mendiola Quintanilla ("Defendant") is 19 represented by Attorney Curtis C. Van de veld. Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio 20 represented the People of Guam ("the People"). Having reviewed the pleadings and having 21 heard oral arguments in this matter, the Court issues the following Decision and Order. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On June 20, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment and charged theDefendant with: 24 1) Four Counts of Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony); 2) Four Counts of Theft (as a Second 25 Degree Felony); 3) Assault on a Peace Officer (as a Third Degree Felony); 4) Five Counts of 26 Criminal Mischief (as a Misdemeanor); 5) Eluding a Police Officer (as a Misdemeanor); 6) 27 Criminal Trespass (as a Misdemeanor); and7) Theft (as a Petty Misdemeanor). See Indictment 28 (June 20, 2019). According to the Declaration attached to the Magistrate Complaint, the charges

Ill\ lulull lll\lll\ l I

Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0328-19, People v. Rake Mendiola Quintanilla, Jr.

1 against the Defendant are based on a series of burglaries alleged to have been conducted by the 2 Defendant, some of which the Defendant has admitted to, and one of which resulted in a "high

3 speed chase" with the Guam Police Department. See Magistrate Complaint (June 10, 2019). 4 At the Magistrate's Hearing on June 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jonathan R. Quan 5 committed the Defendant to the Department of Corrections and set bail in the amount of Ten

6 Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) cash. See Commitment Order (June 10, 2019). On June 11,

7 2019, Defendant posted the $10,000.00 cash bail and was brought before this Court for a bail 8 hearing. Upon the Defendant's pretrial release from custody, the Court imposed certain

9 conditions including, inter alia, house arrest and release to Third Party Custodians ("TPC").

10 See Order of ConditiondRelease and Appearance Bond (June 13, 2019). Both the Defendant ll and TPCs signed the release order, agreed to comply, and initialed next to all conditions the

12 Defendant was required to comply with.

13 On July 27, 2019, Probation Office Anthony L. Morcilla ("P.O. Morcilla") filed a First 14 Violation Report indicating that the Defendant violated the Court's order of house arrest. See 15 let Violation Report (July 27, 2019). Subsequently, the Court issued a Warrant of Arrest and the 16 Defendant was arrested and detained that same day. On July 2, 2019, at the hearing on the 17 Return of Warrant, the Court forfeited the $10,000.00 cash bail and revoked the Defendant's 18 pretrial release and conditions. The Court committed the Defendant and set bail again in the

19 amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($l0,000.00) cash. See Commitment Order (June 27, 2019)1. 20 Thereafter, on July 9, 2019, the Court filed a Notice of Citation Declaring Forfeiture and 21 Judgment Nisi After Bond Forfeiture ("Judgment Nisi"). 22 On August 19, 2019, the Defendant filed the instant motion, opposing the forfeiture of 23 bail posted by the Defendant's father, Roke San Nicolas Quintanilla. Specifically, the Defendant 24 moves the Court to rescind the Judgment Nisi because the forfeiture of bail is based upon a 25 violation of a release condition and not for the Defendant's failure to appear. The People did not 26

27 1 On October 21, 2019, the Defendant filed an Ex Pane Application for Modification of Conditions of Release requesting that the Court release the Defendant on house arrest and placed in the electronic monitoring program. On 28 November 15, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Modification of Conditions al Release.

_ Ill ll H H II l l

Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0328-19, People v. Rake Mendiola Quintanilla, Jr.

1 file an Opposition. On September 26, 2019, the .Court heard arguments on the instant motion 2 and subsequently took the matter under advisement. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Pretrial release and bail forfeitures are governed by statute. See Title 8 GCA § 40.10 et 5 seq. The Court possesses the authority to impose certain conditions reasonably likely to assure a 6 defendant's appearance during criminal proceedings as required, or the safety of other persons 7 and the community at large. Q at § 40.20. Those conditions include, but are not limited to, 8 "execution of a bond in an amount specified by the judge, such bond in the discretion of the 9 judge to be either unsecured or secured in whole or in part by the deposit of cash or other 10 property, or by the obligation of qualified sureties." Q at § 40.20(c). If a defendant violates any 11 of the conditions of his or her release, the Court may issue a warrant of arrest or revoke release. 12 Q at §§ 40.65, 40.70, 40.75(b). Additionally, if a Defendant on pretrial release "fails to appear, 13 without sufficient excuse, before any court or judge as required . . any security which was 14 given or pledged for his release shall immediately be declared forfeited." Q at § 40.90(b). 15 Thus, the Defendant is correct that the Court may forfeit bail when a declaration of forfeiture 16 has been made when the Defendant fails to appear. However, within the same statutory scheme, 17 Guanl's release statute provides, "[w]hen a person is brought before the court [upon violation of 18 conditions or failure to appear] .. the court finds that a person released pursuant to this Chapter 19 has willfully violated the conditions imposed on his release the court may order the 20 imposition of such conditions as are reasonably necessary to assure the person's appearance as 21 required and his compliance with any conditions imposed pursuant to this Chapter." Q at § 22 40.75(a) (parenthesis omitted). Accordingly, when read together, the Court is within its 23 authority to enforce compliance of release conditions, including the forfeiture of bail for both 24 the failure to appear and violations of such conditions. 25

26 2 See Sumitomo Constr. Co.. v. Gov 't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 '][ 17 (Courts must look first to the plain meaning of 27 the statute and absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails. In determining legislative intent, a statute should be read as a whole, and therefore, courts should construe each section in conjunction with 28 other sections).

Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0328-19; People v. Roke Mendiola Quintanilla, Jr.

1 Further, the California Supreme Court has also opined that the purpose of bail and its 2 forfeiture is to insure the attendance of the accused and obedience to the orders and judgment 3 of the Court. People v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., 62 Cd. 4th 703, 709, 366 P.3d 57, 59 (2016) 4 (quoting People v. Wilcox, 53 Cad.2d 651, 656-657 (1960)) (emphasis added)3. As the 5 California Supreme Court explains, the bail bond itself is characterized as a contract between 6 the government and the surety. Thus, "the contractual nature of the relationship between the 7 government and the surety leads to the conclusion that the bail order is the offer, and the posing 8 of a bond is the acceptance of that offer". See People v. Fin. Cas. & Sur., Inc., 39 Cad. App. 5th 9 1213, 1225 (Ct. App. 2019); see also People v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 11 Cal. App. 5th 456, 461 (Ct. 10 App. 2017) ("courts must consider the bonding language"). 11 Here, by signing the Order of Conditions Release and Appearance, both the Defendant 12 and the TPCs acknowledged and agreed that the Ten Thousand Dollar ($l0,000.00) cash bond 13 would be forfeited if the Defendant failed to make any court appearances Q violated any of the 14 terms of his release. See Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond (June 13, 2019). 15 Notwithstanding the Court's order and the potential sanction of forfeiture, the Defendant 16 nonetheless violated his house arrest condition and leaving the custody of his TPCs. See let 17 Violation Report (July 27, 2019). By violating his pretrial release conditions, the Defendant 18 potentially compromised the safety of the community. Moreover, the issuance and enforcement 19 of the bench warrant resulted in what was otherwise an unnecessary expenditure of judicial 20 resources. Accordingly, pursuant to the Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond, 21 and the mandates of Title 8 GCA § 40.10 et seq., the Court was well within its authority to 22 forfeit the security posted for the Defendant's pretrial release. 23 Finally, the Court highlights the importance of release conditions, that is, to ensure the 24 safety of the community and to secure presence of the accused in court. 8 GCA § 40.20. The 25

26 3 Guam's bail forfeiture statute is based on California Penal Code § 1305. See Cal. Penal Code § 1305(a) (when a person for whom a bail bond has been posted fails without. sufficient excuse to appear as required, the trial court 27 must declare a forfeiture of the bond). Thus, California case law is instructive, absent a compelling reason to deviate. See People v. Tedtaotao, 2014 Guam 33 (Guam's Code of Criminal Procedure is derived from the 28 California Penal Code). See also People v. Hall, 2004 Guam 12 q 18 (finding California case law interpreting a California statute from which a Guam statute was derived is persuasive authority).

Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0328-19, People v. Rake Mendiola Quintanilla, Jr

1 provisions and sanctions contained in the Order of Conditional Release and Appearance, as well 2 as the mandates of 8 GCA § 40.10 et seq., reinforce compliance with such conditions. Without 3 sanctions, release orders have no force. Thus, through both its statutory and inherent authorities, 4 the Court is mandated to enforce compliance with release conditions. 5 Accordingly, the Court finds that the forfeiture of the Defendant's Ten Thousand Dollar 6 ($10,000.0()) cash bond for the violation of his release conditions is appropriate. Thus, the 7 Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Forfeiture of Bail

10 Posted by Roke San Nicolas Quintanilla is DENIED. The Court finds that the forfeiture of the 11 Defendant's Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00) cash bond for the violation of his release 12 conditions is appropriate 13 14

15 IT IS so ORDERED DEC 312019 16

17 18

19 / L

20 ( I/Q5 ..-

HONORRABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 21 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22

23 24

SERVICE VIA COURT BOX

25 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the 26 court b of:

27 `N"M* 28 Daters 9, . Fm!

I

Q

Deputy Clerk, Supen0r Court of Guam