People v. Ramirez
This text of People v. Ramirez (People v. Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 i- I L E D SUPERIOR COURT 2 GF GUAH 3 2022 JAN 12 PM 2: 25 4 CLE QFZQURT 5 By!
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 9 plaintiff Case No. CM03 l 1-21 10
ll vs. DECISION AND ORDER 12 DAISY GUZMAN RAMIREZ II, (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice as an Inappropriate Prosecution 13 Pursuant to 9 G C A § 7 .6 7 ( b ) ) Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino for an evidentiary hearing 17 on Daisy Ramirez Guzman ITs ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice as an 18
19 Inappropriate Prosecution Pursuant to 9 GCA §7.67(b), filed on October 19, 2021. Peter J.
20 Santos represents Defendant. Katherine M. Nepton represents the People ofGuam ("People").
21 Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES
22 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice as an Inappropriate Prosecution Pursuant to 9 23 GCA § 7.67(b). 24 BACKGROUND 25 On July 23, 2021, Guam Police Department ("GPD") Oflicers responded to a complaint 26 of a disturbance at a residence. People v. Guzman, CM0268-21 Mag. Complaint at 2, July 24, 27 2021. Daisy C. Ramirez ("Victim") informed the Officers that her daughter was threatening
Page 1 of 5 \
1 her and that she did not feel safe in her home. Id. Earlier that evening, Defendant arrived at
2 Victim's house-Defendant's parents' house-pounded on the door, and said, "I will kill you 3 or I will find people who will." Id. Defendant struck Victim's upper body with her shoulder. 4 Id. Defendant then threw Victim's items around the living room while yelling "bitch." Id. 5 The Officers reviewed video of Defendant and Victim's interaction, and confirmed Victim's 6 story was accurate. Id. Defendant was arrested and charged with Family Violence (As a 7 8 Misdemeanor). Id. Ar 1. Defendant was arraigned, released from custody, and ordered to stay
9 away from Victim. Order of Conditional Release and Appearance Bond, July 24, 2021. The
10 stay away order listed a number of places Defendant must stay away from, including her
11 parents' house. Id. On September 30, 2021, Defendant entered into a deferred guilty plea on 2 . . . . .n 1 the Famlly Vlolence (As a Mlsdemeanor) charge. FV Mlsdemeanor Plea Condltlons Deferred, 13 Oct. 1 2021. 14 On August 14, 2021, GPD Officers responded to a complaint of a violation of a court 15
16 order at a residence. Mag. Complaint at 3, Aug. 16, 2021. Sergio Ramirez ("Witness")-
17 Defendant's father-informed the officers that Defendant was sitting on the porch of his
18 residence despite a court order forbidding her from coming to his residence. Id. Officer
19 Ascura asked Defendant if she knew about the court order and Defendant responded "yes." Id.
20 Officer Ascura arrested Defendant, and she was charged with Violation of a Court Order (As a 21 Misdemeanor). Id. at 1-3. Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss on October 19, 2021, and 22 the People filed a response. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss with Prejudice as an Inappropriate 23 Prosecution Pursuant to 9 GCA § 7.67(b), Oct. 19, 2021 (hereinafter "Def.'s Mot. to 24 25 Dismiss"), People's Opp'n. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss with Prejudice (hereinafter "People's
26 Opp'n."), Oct. 27, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 1, 2021.
27 Minute Entry, Nov. 1, 2021.
Page 2 of S \
1 DISCUSSION
2 Defendant moves to dismiss the instant case pursuant to 9 GCA § 7.67(b). Def.'s Mot. 3 . . u to Dlsrnlss at 1. Defendant contends that the People should have declined to prosecute the case 4 because Defendant was simply at Victim's home, she did not threaten, harass, or assault 5 anyone. Id. at 2. Defendant further argues that this case should have been a "police service 6 7 removal" and not an arrest. Id. Lastly, Defendant notes that the People and Defendant were in
8 the process of finalizing the Deferred Family Violence Plea Agreement ("DFVPA") in
9 CM0268-21 when this incident occurred, effectively defeating the DFVPA. Id. at 2-3.
10 Defendant maintains that "contact was requested by all parties." Id. at 2. The People argue
11 that dismissal with prejudice is not warranted because "there is justice in seeldng that court 12 orders be followed." People's Opp'n. at 3-4, Oct. 27, 2021. The People further argue that 13 while the parties were in the process of finalizing the DFVPA, the "resolution of one crime 14 does not diminish a second crime." Id. at 4. 15 Title 9 GCA § 7.67(b) provides "[t]he court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having 16
17 regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the
18 attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct... [d]id not actually cause or
19 threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only
20 to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction." In order to consider 21 dismissal under 9 GCA § 7.67(b), the Court should assume all factual allegations as true and 22 determine whether the alleged conduct exposes society to a risk of harm sufficient to warrant 23 conviction. People v. Perez, 2004 Guam 4 *J[ 16. The Court determines the risk of harm to 24 society by evaluating (1) the attendant circumstances, (2) the existence of contraband, (3) the 25
26 value of the property involved, (4) the use or threat of violence, and (5) the use of weapons.
27 Id. ElI 'll 12 (citing State v. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d 284, 288 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1987)).
Page 3 of 5 \
1 Guam law defines the offense of Violation of a Court Order as a "knowing violation.
2 [of] an order removing or excluding a person from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of 3 another, or from any habitable property, as defined in Subsection (b) of § 34.10, Chapter 34 of 4 this Title." 9 GCA § 30.40(a)(2). Assuming all factual allegations in this matter to be true, 5 Defendant sat on the porch of her parents' house until GPD officers arrived and arrested her. 6 7 Defendant told the officers that she was aware of this court order. Mag. Complaint at 3.
8 Therefore, the Court finds the elements of Violation of a Court Order are met here.
9 Defendant correctly points out that there was no use of violence or threat of violence,
10 nor was there use of weapons. Digital Recording at 9:29: l5-9:42:09. Additionally, there was
11 no contraband or a high value of property involved. Id. While these factors suggest a low risk 12 . . . of harm to society, the Court notes the serlousness of the attendant clrcumstances. The reason 13 the Court ordered Defendant to stay away from her parents' house was because she threatened 14 to kill Victim. The Court also finds the gravity of disobeying an order from a court outweighs 15 16 the fact that Defendant was not violent and did not threaten or harass Victim while she was at
17 Victim's house. The "evil sought to be prevented by the law" is not-as the Defendant
18 argues-violence or threats, but rather the act of disobeying the court order itself.
19 Defendant argues that there is no good purpose for pursuing this case. Id. However,
20 there is an interest in justice regarding the law of prohibiting a violation of a court order. 21 Digital Recording at 9229: 15-9:42:09. An order issued by a court is worthless if there is no 22 incentive to follow it. Moreover, the People state they chose to charge this case because there 23 is an "epidemic of people ignoring stay away orders." Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Ramirez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-superctguam-2022.