People v. Rivera

Superior Court of Guam·Decided December 13, 2023·No. CF0005-23·Unknown

Opinion

FI

SUPERlOR COURT

Cl OFGLMTEM

GUiU/1

ZEZEDEC ,~~ 58 2G23 DEC 13 PM 141 '53

1 CLERK CLERl\ UF

OF COURT

COURT

2

g i mp .

3 IJ i .L

4

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM COURT OF GUAM

7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE CF000S-23 CASE NO. CF0005-23

8 )) GPD Report ReportNo.:

No.:22-06966/23-00115

22-06966/23-00115

)

9 vs. VS. ))

10 ) DECISION AND AND ORDER

ORDER RE.

)) DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO COUNSEL'S MOTION

11 II )) WITHDRAW WITHDRAW DUE

DUE TO

TO INCOMPETENCE

JAMES TORRES RIVERA, )

RUEBEN JAMES 12 12 DOB:

DOB: 12/28/1995 12/28/1995 ))

13 13 _______________))

14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter

matter came before the

the Honorable

Honorable Judge

Judge Maria T.

T. Cenzon

Cenzon on

on September 2023,

18, 2023,

September 18,

16 16 for for a hearing hearing on

onthe

theMotion

Motionto

toWithdraw

WithdrawDue Incompetence(the DuetotoIncompetence "Motion") filed by Attorney (the"Motion")

17 17

18 Michael Michael Berman Berman as

as court-appointed (hereinafter"Defense counsel (hereinafter

court-appointed counsel Counsel" or "Defense Counsel" or "Attorney 18

19 19 Berman") to to Defendant

Defendant Rueben James

JamesTorres Rivera (hereinafter "Defendant").

Tories Rivera was Defendant was

"Defendant"). Defendant

20 20 present via Zoom with present via with Attorney Attorney Berman

Berman and

and present the People present for the was Assistant People was Attorney Assistant Attorney

21 General Christine S. Tenorio.

Tenorio. Following

Followingthe

thehearing,

hearing,the

theCourt tookthe

Courttook matterunder thematter advisement under advisement

22 pursuant pursuant otoCVR CVR7.l(e)(6)(D)

7. 1(€)(6)(D)ofofthe

the LOCALRULES

LOCAL RULESOF

OFTHE

THESUPERIOR

SUPERIORCOURT

COURT OF

OF GUAM

GUAM

23

24 and Administrative Rule Nos. 06-001.

and Administrative After considering 06-001. After considering the pleadings on file the pleadings and having file and heard

having heard

24

25 25 oral arguments, and after arguments, and after reviewing applicable statutes the applicable

reviewing the Court now statutes and case law, the Court issues now issues

26 26 this Decision Decision and

andOrder

OrderDENYING

DENYING Defense Counsel's Motion.

.27 People of People Guam vs.

ofGuam Rueben James vs. Rueben Torres Rivera James Tories

28 28 CF0005-23 No. CF0005-23

Case No.

Criminal Case Criminal

Decision Decision and

and Order re. Defense

Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw Counsel's Motion Due to ithdraw Due Incompetence to Incompetence

Page 12 Page 11 of 12

FACTUAL FACTUAL &

& PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I

2 The Defendant is charged charged with

with the

the following

following offenses: 1)

1) First

First Degree

Degree Criminal

Criminal Sexual

Sexual

3 Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), 2)

2) Second

Second Degree

Degree Criminal

Criminal Sexual

Conduct (As Sexual Conduct Conduct (As aa First

First

4 . . .

Third Degree

Degree Felony), 3) Thlrd Degree Cnmmal Criminal Sexual

Sexual Conduct (As a

Conduct (As a Second 4)

Second Degree Felony), 4)

5 Fourth Degree Fourth Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual

Sexual Conduct

Conduct(As

(As a Third Degree Felony), and and 5)

5) Possession of aa

Possession of

6 Schedule II Controlled Substance Schedule II (As a Third Degree Substance (As Degree Felony).

Felony).See

SeeIndictment

Indictment (Jan.

(Jan. 12,

12, 2023).

2023).

7

8 8 Attorney Berman Berman was

was appointed

appointed to

to represent

represent Defendant

Defendant on

onJanuary

January 5, 2023.

2023. See Ntc.

Ntc. of

of Court

Court

9 9 Appointed Counsel Counsel (Jan. 5, 2023).

(Jan. 5, 2023). At the

the Magistrate's

Magistrate's Hearing

Hearing on

on January

January 6, 2023,

2023, Attorney

Attorney

10 10 Frankie Perez'1appeared appeared on

on behalf

behalf of

ofDefendant

Defendant and

and he

he appeared

appeared again

again on Defendant's behalf behalf at

at

11 11 the continued the continued Magistrate's Magistrate's hearing

hearing on

on January

January 9,

9, 2023.

2023. See

See Magistrate's

Magistrate's Hrg.

Hrg. (Jan. 6, 2023),

(Jan. 6, 2023);

12 12

133 1 Magistrate's Hrg. (Jan. 9, 2023).

(Jan. 9, 2023). At

At no time did Attorney Perez Perez raise

raise the

the issue of his

issue of his ability

ability to

to

14 14 competently represent represent the Defendant during during previous

previous hearings.

hearings.

15 On January 19, 2023,

January 19, 2023, during

during the

the Defendant's

Defendant's Arraignment

Arraignment Hearing,

Hearing, Attorney

Attorney Perez

Perez

16 appeared on Defendant's appeared on Defendant's behalf behalf and

andentered

enteredaaplea

pleaof

ofNot

Not Guilty

Guilty by Reason

Reason of Mental

Mental Illness

Illness

17 ("NGRI") ("NORI")and, and,asasaaresult,

result,Magistrate

MagistrateJudge

Judge Benjamin

BenjaminC.

C.Sison,

Sison, Jr.,

Jr., ordered a forensic evaluation evaluation

18 18

19 19 pursuant pursuant toto99GCA GCA §§ 7.22(d).

7.22(d). See

See Arraignment

Arraignment Hearing

Hearing Minutes

Minutes (Jan.

(Jan. 19,

19, 2023),

2023), and Order for

and Order for

20 Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation (Jan.

(Jan. 20,

20, 2023).

2023). Subsequently,

Subsequently, Dr.

Dr. Juan

Juan Rapadas

Rapadas found

found the

the Defendant

Defendant

21 competent to be proceeded proceeded against

against and

and to be

be sentenced

sentenced and

and opined that Defendant did that Defendant did not

not lack

lack

22

23

24 24

25 11 Attorney Attorney Frankie FrankiePerez

Perez ("Attorney

("Attorney Perez")

Perez")isisaamember

memberof ofDefense Counsel'slaw Defense Counsel's lawfirm.

firm.On

OnJanuary

January 6,

6, 2023, Attorney

2023, Attorne

26 26 Perez Perez appeared appeared on behalf ofofDefendant Defendant during

during the hearing. Minutes the Magistrate's hearing. Minutes of ofMagistrate's

Magistrate's Hrg.

Hrg. via

via Zoom

Zoom ata

4:41:45 PM (Jan.

(Jan. 6, 2023).

27 People People ofofGuam

Guam vs.

vs. Rueben James

James Torres

Tories Rivera

Rivera

28 28 Criminal Criminal Case

Case No. CF0005-23

CF000S-23

Decision Decision and

and Order re.

re. Defense

Defense Counsel's

Counsel's Motion

Motion to Withdraw Due

Due to

to Incompetence

Incompetence

Page 2 of12

"substantial capacity" "substantial at the capacity" at time of the time the incident of the to qualify incident to NGRI. See qualify for NGRI. Evaluation Forensic Evaluation

See Forensic

1

22 (Feb. 13, (Feb. 13,2023).

3 2023 before this 7, 2023

During the Competency Hearing on March 7, Court, neither Attorney this Court,

4 on behalf

Perez on ofDefendant behalf of nor Assistant Defendant nor General Grant Olan on behalf Assistant Attorney General the People behalf of the

5 contested Dr. Rapadas's findings, thus, the Court adopted the findings; thus, as its the Forensic Evaluation Report as 6

7 findings on own findings own Defendant'scompetency on Defendant's andsubstantial competencyand capacity. The substantial capacity. Courtthen The Court set the

then set matter

the matter

7

8 for trial. Further Proceedings trial. See Further Hr'g Minutes at 09:31:34 ProceedingsHr'g AM (Mar. 7, 2023), 09:31:34AM Criminal Trial 2023); Criminal

9 other deadlines Scheduling Order (May 9, 2023). Among other the Trial deadlines set forth in the Trial Scheduling Order, 10 10 the deadline the Court set the for all motions as July 3, 2023.

deadline for

11 months later, on August 8, 2023, Several months duringthe 2023, during Pre-Trial Conference and for the first thePre-Trial

12 12

13 13 time since the inception the case, Attorney ofthe

inception of Perezand AttorneyPerez the Defendant andthe requested the Defendant requested Court appoint the Court

14 14 him a new new attorney.

attorney.See

SeePre-Trial 09:39:49AM Pre-Trial Conference Minutes at 09:39:49 (Aug. 8, AM (Aug. 2023). The

8, 2023). Court

The Could

15 Defendant outside

queried Defendant of the outside of presence of the presence Perez regarding of Attorney Perez why Defendant regarding why wanted Defendant wanted

16 16 new counsel to which counsel to he responded, which he "My attorney responded,"My andII don't attorney and see eye-to-eye."

don't see Id atat 09:40:09 eye-to-eye." Id 09:40:09 17 17 18 when further However, when AM. However, questioned by further questioned the Court, by the became clear Court, ititbecame that Defendant clear that has never Defendant has

18

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Rivera, (superctguam 2023).

People v. Rivera (People v. Rivera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morris v. Slappy
461 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Carl Dexter Moore
159 F.3d 1154 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Zarabia v. Bradshaw
912 P.2d 5 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1996)
People of Guam v. Michael Anthony Libby
2021 Guam 27 (Supreme Court of Guam, 2021)