People v. Quitugua

Opinion

- L- ;

SUPERIGR scum" !':?. V u GUAM 1 25323 SEP lg P M 5 2 CLERKQF CQURT 3 IP\\f . 4 L! E I

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0091-14 GPD Report No. 13-37529 7 v. DECISION AND ORDER 8 FRANCIS CANICE QUITUGUA GRANTING THE PEOPLE'S 9 (aka FRANK), REQUESTED RESTITUTION DOB: 01/25/1969 10 Defendant. 11

13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on August 7, 2023 for a

14 Restitution Hearing. Assistant Attorney General Kristine Borja represents the People, and Attorney

15 William Brennan represents Francis Canice Quitugua (aka "Frarlk") (aka "Defendant"). Having duly

16 considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the

17 following Decision and Order and GRANTS the People's requested restitution.

lb BAC KGR OUND

19 In November, 2022, Defendant was adjudicated guilty of Theft of Services (as a 3'd Degree

20 Felony) a fter fa iling to complete the ter ms of his defer r ed plea a gr eement. See Judgment of

21 Conviction (Nov. 21, 2022). Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to pay full restitution

22 to DD Car Rental, Tum of (aka "Victim"). See Deferred Plea Agreement (Oct. 26, 2016). Defendant

23 had rented a car from Victim for the week of November 15-22, 2013, but intentionally held onto the

24 rental car beyond its return date. Victim did not recover the car until January 28, 2014. See

25 Magistrate's Complaint (Feb. 26, 2014).

26 On July 19, 2016, Victim submitted their Amended Restitution Summary Report. See

27 Submission of Summary Report (Re: Restitution) (Jul. 19, 2016). Victim requested restitution of

28 $3,796.58 This amount consists of: (1) the expired contract covering the 68 days Defendant held

Decision and Order Granting die People's Requested Restitution CF0091-14, People of Guam v. Francis Quitugua Page 1 of 4 1 onto the rental car beyond the return date ($3,264.00, calculated at a rate of $48.00/day), (2) money

2 spent on a private investigator to locate the car ($200.00), and (3) interest from Jan. 28 - Aug. 14,

3 2014 ($332.58, calculated at 18% APR). Q

4 Defendant now challenges Victim's claimed restitution on several grounds. First, Defendant

5 claims the expired contract amount was improperly calculated. See Brief Re: Restitution at 2 (Mar.

6 24, 2023). Defendant claims it should be calculated at $154.00/week (the same rate as the rental

7 contract itself), rather than at $48.00/day (the rate for expired contracts listed on the rental contract).

8 Q at 2. Next, Defendant claims such future lost rental income is excluded from restitution as being

9 too specula tive. at 2. Defendant also challenges the inclusion of interest and the private

10 investigator expenses in the restitution. Q at 2-3. Lastly, Defendant claims he is unable to pay the

1 l requested restitution due to financial and health-related issues. Q at 4.

12 On May 3, 2023, the People filed their Response to Restitution Brief (aka "Response"). The

13 People claim the expired contract amount should be calculated at $48.00/day and subject to interest

14 of 18% APR, as those terms were listed in the rental contract which Defendant agreed to. See

15 Response at 1-2 (May 3, 2023). The People also challenge Defendant's claimed inability to pay

16 restitution, believing he does have the ability/means to pay it off. Q at 3.

17 The Court held a hearing on August 7, 2023. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the

18 Court took the matter under advisement.

20 1. Preliminary Rules :

21 "A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine or to

22 make restitution not exceeding: 23 (b) Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), when the conviction is a felony of the 24 third degree, 25 (e) Any amount equal to double the pecuniary gain to the offender or loss to 26 77 27 the victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense.

28 See 9 G.C.A. § 80.50.

Decision and Order Granting the People's Requested Restitution CF0091-14,People of Guam v. Francis Quitugua Page 2 off 1 "The court shall not sentence an offender to pay a line or make restitution unless the

2 offender is or, given a fair opportunity to do so, will be able to pay the fine or restitution." See I

3 9 G.C.A. § 80.52(c). "In determining the amount and method of payment of a fine or 4 restitution, the court shall take into account the financial resources of the offender and the 5 nature of the burden that its payment will impose." See 9 G.C.A. § 80.52(d). 6

7 II. Application :

8 Victim's requested restitution falls below the $5,000.00 limit of 9 G.C.A. § 80.50(b).

9 However, the Court must still find that the requested restitution does not exceed the "loss to

10 the victim". See 9 G.C.A. § 80.50(e). "Loss" means "the amount of value separated from the 11 victim." 12 Here, Defendant's conduct in holding onto the rental car beyond the agreement's terms, 13 caused several forms of loss to the Victim. One such loss was the expired contract which 14

15 remains unpaid to this day. Defendant agreed to pay $48.00/day for each of the 68 days he

16 held onto the rental car beyond its return date. See Response at 3 (May 3, 2023). By not 17 paying off the expired contract, DefeNdant has deprived Victim of $3,264.00 which they were 18 otherwise due to receive. Another such loss was the $200.00 that Victim spent on hiring a 19 private investigator to locate the car. This loss was actually and proximately caused by 20

21 Defendant's wrongful conduct because Victim would naturally expend resources to locate

22 their stolen car. The last loss Victim suffered was interest on the above two losses. In his

23 rental agreement, Defendant agreed to pay interest of 18% APR on unpaid balances and 24 collection costs. at 3. By not paying this interest, Defendant has deprived Victim of 25 $332.58 they were otherwise due to receive. In total, Defendant's conduct has caused 26 $3,796.58 in losses to the Victim. 27

Decision and Order Granting the People's Requested Restitution CF0091-14, People of Guam v. Francis Quitugua Page 3 of 4 I

1 However, before rendering the amount of restitution owed, the court must first

2 determine that Defendant is "able to pay". See 9 G.C.A. § 80.52(c). Defendant is culTently 3 confined to a wheel chair due to health-related issues. See Brief Re: Restitution at 4 (Mar. 24, 4 2023). However, this alone does not indicate Defendant's permanent inability to pay 5 restitution. Defendant has several options to pay off the restitution he otherwise promised in 6

7 his plea agreement. For example, Defendant may one day reenter the work force, reallocate

8 his expenses, sell off some assets, or dip into his savings account. Defendant can still make

9 good faith efforts to repay the restitution, disability or not. See Model Penal Code § 7.02 cut 10 (Restitution can be ordered if the "defendant is adjudged capable of paying it, either at once 11 or in the fLlture."). 12

13 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the People's restitution request. Defendant 14 shall owe Victim restitution totaling three thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars and fifty-eight 15 16 cents ($3,796.58).

17 IT IS SO ORDERED this September 19 , 2023 18 r

21 HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III 22 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 23

Decision and Order Granting the People's Requested Restitution CF0091-14, People of Guam v. Francis Quitugua Page 4 of 4