People v. Quitugua

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 5, 2018
• Docket: CF0579-17
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

flLEO SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA~1 2 20\8 JAN -5 PM 2: 28 3

4 CLERK~:: ~ 5 IN THE SUPERIOR CO~_RT OF GUA\M:_,_-...Ju'+--- 6

7 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0579-17 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 10

11 JACOB JAMES QUITUGUA, 12 Defendant. 13

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Jacob James

16 Quitugua's Motion to Sever Theft and Drug Charge, filed December 11, 2017. Attorney Leevin

17 T. Camacho represents Defendant. Assistant Deputy Attorney General James C. Collins

18 represents the People of Guam ("the Government"). Having reviewed the pleadings, the

19 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.

20 BACKGROUND

21 On October 24, 2017, an Indictment was filed against Defendant and codefendants Rai

22 Onedera Blas, Justin-Rey John Alcantara, and Harry George Cook Cruz. Defendant is charged

23 with the following: (1) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (As a Second Degree Felony); and

24 (2) Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony). 1 (Indictment,

25 Oct. 24, 2017). Co-defendants Rai Onedera Blas, Justin-Rey John Alcantara, and Harry George

26 Cook Cruz are each charged with Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (As a Third Degree

28 1 These charges are reflected in the Indictment as Charge Four and Charge Five.

People v. Quitugua Case No. CF0579-17 Decision and Order

Page 1 of4 Felony). Id. These charges stern from an investigation into a stolen MacBook computer from a 2 victim's horne in July 2017, and the subsequent discovery of suspected rnetharnphetamines in 3 Defendant's residence during the execution of a search warrant for the computer in October 4 2017. See Decl. of Jeremiah B. Luther, Magistrate's Cornpl., Oct. 7, 2017; Opp'n, Dec. 18, 5 2017. On N overnber 22, 2017, Defendant asserted his right to speedy trial. 2 Jury Selection and 6 Trial is currently set to commence on January 17,2018 at 1:30 p.m. 7 On December 11, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Sever Theft and Drug Charge. On 8 December 18, 2017, the Government filed its Opposition. On December 19, 2017, at a Further 9 Proceedings hearing, the parties indicated that the matter could be submitted on the briefs, and 10 the Court subsequently placed it under advisement. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Defendant moves the Court to sever the drug charge from the theft charges. Defendant 13 argues that pursuant to 8 G.C.A. § 55.35, the charges must be severed from each other because 14 "there is no connection whatsoever between Quitugua buying a computer and having drugs." 15 (Mot. at 2, Dec. 11, 2017).

16 Under Guam law, two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment "if the 17 offenses charged are of the same or similar character or based on the same act or transaction or 18 on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common 19 scheme or plan." 8 G.C.A. § 55.35. 3 When determining whether offenses are properly joined, 20

21 2 On November 8, 2017, at Arraignment, co-defendant Blas waived his right to speedy trial. See Minute Entry, 22 Nov. 8, 2017; Waiver of Speedy Trial (Blas), Nov. 13, 2017. At Arraignment and the subsequent Criminal Trial Setting, co-defendant Cruz requested a trial date pursuant to statute. See Minute Entry, Nov. 15, 2017; Minute 23 Entry, Nov. 27, 2017. On November 15, 2017, a Bench Warrant was issued for co-defendant Alcantara for failure to appear at his Arraignment Hearing. See Bench Warrant, Nov. 15, 2017; Minute Entry, Nov. 15, 2017. 24 Section 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule .8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See 8 G.C.A. § 25 55.35, Note. Rule 8(a) provides: 26 (a) Joinder of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged - whether felonies or misdemeanors or both - are 27 of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. 28 Fed. R. Crim. P. 8.

Page 2 of4 courts traditionally consider "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they 2 involve similar victims, locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the 3 charged conduct occurred." United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (1st Cir. 1995) (citations 4 omitted). Furthermore, "the validity of the joinder is determined solely by the allegations in the 5 indictment." United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. 6 Terry, 911 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1990)). "[T]he primary purpose of Rule 8(a) joinder is to ensure 7 that a given transaction need only be proved once.... Where there is substantial overlap in 8 evidence between two offenses, joinder eliminates the need to prove substantially the same 9 evidence twice over, thus realizing precisely the kind of economy envisaged by Rule 8(a)." 10 Howerton v. United States, 964 A.2d 1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009). (citations, internal quotation 11 marks, and alterations omitted). See also Terry, 911 F.2d at 276 ("When ... joined offenses are 12 not connected and are not provable by the same evidence, joinder is improper."). 13 As Defendant puts forth in his Motion, the underlying allegation in this matter is a stolen 14 computer which was later sold to a co-defendant and then to Defendant himself. See Mot. at 2. 15 During the investigation into the stolen computer, a search warrant was executed for the 16 computer at Defendant's residence where ultimately the computer and drug evidence were 17 found. !d. The Government argues that a "trial of either offense will ... require testimony 18 concerning identical evidence and statements" as Defendant was questioned about both the 19 drugs and the computer at the same time and he also made a written statement about both the 20 drugs and the computer. (Opp'n at 3-4). 21 The Court acknowledges the Government's argument that a drug addiction might 22 provide a motive to engage in theft offenses; however, based on the allegations in the 23 Indictment, the Court does not find that the theft charge and the drug charge in this matter are so 24 directly related. In this case, Defendant is charged with Theft by Receiving Stolen Property for 25 possessing a MacBook that was stolen three months prior. Although there is evidence that will 26 overlap between the theft by receiving charge and the possession charge by virtue of them being 27 found in the same location, the Court does not find that they were part of the same act or 28 transaction, nor did they necessarily constitute part of a common scheme or plan. Accordingly,

Page 3 of 4 the Court finds joinder of the two charges improper in this matter, and GRANTS Defendant's 2 Motion to Sever. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever 5 Theft and Drug Charge.

4~ay 6 IT IS SO ORDERED this of January, 2018. 7

10 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

13 ;)i:RVICE VIA COURT BOiC 14 I a.c~nowledge that a copy of the oragmal hereto was placed in the 15 coA/~xoi..~ 16

Page 4 of 4