People v. Rodriguez
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF GUAM
2
3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM. ) CRIMINAL CASE No. CF 0222-12 4 )
)
5 V. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) On Defendant's 6 CECELIO PALOMARES RODRIGUEZ. ) Motion to Reduce Felony Charges to 7 ) Misdemeanors and Defendant. ) Request for Deferred Plea 8
9
10
INTRODUCTION
II
I2 This matter was taken under advisement by the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo o
I3 February 21, 2013, on Defendant's Motion to Reduce Felony Charges to Misdemeanors. Th I4 People of Guam did not file an opposition and were represented by Assistant Attorney Genera 15 James Stake at oral argument on February 61h, 2013. The Defendant was represented by Assistan I6
I7 Public Defender Maria Fitzpatrick. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers presented, th
I8 court now issues the following decision GRANTING the Defendant's Motion to Reduce Felony 19 Charges to a Misdemeanor and GRANTING the Motion for Deferred Plea for the Family 20 Violence charges.
2I FACTUAL HISTORY
22
23 The Defendant was indicted on one count of felony Terrorizing, two charges containin
24 four counts of felony Fami~}' Violence, and three counts of misdemeanor Assault. The indictmen 25 arises from an incident that occurred on April 3rd, 2012, involving the Defendant and his wife.
26 On the day in question, the Defendant allegedly got into an argument with his wife. The initia 27 statement made the victim alleges that the Defendant punched her and stated the threat, "If yo call the police, we'll see who dies first". The victim's hair was pulled; she suffered a bruise t 2 her arm and abrasions to her knees from the Defendant allegedly dragging her across the floor.
3 The Defendant has filed a motion asking the Court to reduce all felony charges t 4 misdemeanors and to grant him a Deferred Plea Agreement. Both motions are made pursuant t 5
6 the Family Violence Act. The People were given until February 15t\ 2013 to file a \\Titte
7 opposition after only offering oral argument against the motion. No written opposition was filed. 8 The Defendant subsequently filed additional support for his motion on February 20th' 2013. Th 9
5
Court took the motion under advisement on February 21 \2013.
10 The People have opposed numerous identical motions to reduce felony charges t II
12 misdemeanors. Arguments include that the Court must deny both motions because the Family
13 Violence Act only permits the reduction of Family Violence Charges, making other felon 14 charges, usually Terrorizing, ineligible for reduction. The People usually argue that reducing th 15 felony Family Violence to a misdemeanor is unreasonable given the nature of the allege 16
17 incident. However, the Court notes that the Motion to Reduce only involves the Family Violenc
18 charges and does not affect the Terrorizing charge in any manner. Thus, the code allows th 19 motion to be filed and argued. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
20 DISCUSSION
21 The Defendant has filed a motion pursuant to the Family Violence Act asking the Court t 22
23 reduce the felony Family Violence charges to misdemeanors pursuant to 9 G.C.A. §30.20. Th
24 Defendant has also motioned for a Family Violence Deferred Plea Agreement, which is no 25 available to defendants charged with felony Fami(y Violence. §30.80. The People argue that th 26 First charge of Terrorizing cannot be legally reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to the Act an that a reduction of the remaining charges for felony Family Violence is unwarranted given th 2 facts ofthe case.
3 I. The First Charge of the Indictment 4 The Defendant has motioned to have the felony charges reduced to misdemeanor 5
6 pursuant to 9 G.C.A. §30.20 of the Family Violence Act. The relevant section of the statut
7 reads: "Upon a written, noticed motion prior to commencement of trial, the defendant may mov 8 that a felony charge filed pursuant to this § 30.20 be reduced to a misdemeanor. Whether an)
9 charge shall proceed as a misdemeanor or a felony rests within the discretion of the court.'
IO
II §30.20(b). The statutory language critical to the Defendant's motion is the requirement that th
12 charge be "a felony charge filed pursuant to this § 30.20." I3 The Family Violence Act does not give the Court authority to reduce the felon I4 Terrorizing charge to a misdemeanor. Because the charge is not filed pursuant to the Famil)
I5 Violence Act, the Court does not have the discretion to reduce the Terrorizing charge.
I6
I7 II. The Charges of Felony Family Violence
18 The Defendant has also moved the Court to reduce the four charges of felony I9 Violence to misdemeanors. The Family Violence Act delineates the factual circumstances tha 20 the Court must evaluate in determining whether a felony charge should be reduced. The Ac 21 states that the Court shall consider: "(I) The extent or seriousness of the victim's injuries; (2) Th 22
23 defendant's history of violence against the same victim whether charged or uncharged; (3) Th
24 use of a gun or other weapon by the defendant; (4) The defendant's prior criminal history; (5 25 The victim's attitude and conduct regarding the incident; (6) The involvement of alcohol or othe 26 substance, and the defendant's history of substance abuse as reflected in the defendant's crimina 27 history and other sources; and (7) The defendant's history of and amenability to counseling."
G.C.A. §30.80.2(c) (1994). The Act further clarifies that "Whether any charge shall proceed as 2 misdemeanor or a felony rests within the discretion of the court." §30.80.2(a).
3 The Defendant argues that the facts of his case warrant reducing the felony ramil7 4 Violence charges to misdemeanors. In his motion, the Defendant addresses each of the Famil_ 5
6 Violence Act factors that the Court must consider in evaluating whether or not to reduce th
7 felony to a misdemeanor. The Defendant specifically argues that: (1) the victims' injuries do no 8 constitute serious bodily injury, (2) he has no previous arrest record, (3) he did not use an 9 weapon, (4) the defendant has no criminal history,(5) the victim submitted a statement recantin 10 prior statements about the seriousness of the incident and requested the stay away order be lifted II
12 (6) there is no involvement of alcohol, and (7) that he is amenable to counseling.
13 The Defendant's arguments are supported by the evidence. The Defendant is charged wit 14 misdemeanor Assault for each of the actions which underlie the felony Family Violence charge 15 except for the one dealing with Terrorizing. The Court does not hold that the filing o 16
17 misdemeanor charges for the incidents automatically entitle a defendant to a reduction of th
18 charges. It is but one factor of the test and the court looks to the alleged conduct. The filing o !9 misdemeanor assault charges does indicate the level of the injuries. The Court disagrees with th 20 Defendant that felony Family Violence requires the "serious bodily injury" required for a felon 21 Aggravated Assault charge. The victim has allegedly recanted the statement which is the basis o 22
23 the Terrorizing charge. He has no history of prior incidents and has no criminal history.
24 There is no evidence of the involvement of alcohol in the alleged incident which weighs i 25 favor of reducing the charges. The facts of the Defendant's case support reducing the Fa mil 26 Violence charges to misdemeanors. The Court, after considering factors outlined to determine th 27
28
4 of5
appropriateness of a Family Violence felony charges, finds that reduction is warranted in thi 2 case.
3 III. The Motion for Deferred Plea 4 The Defendant has also motioned the Court to grant him a Deferred Plea.
5
6 Defendanfs motion is premised on his having the felony Family Violence charges reduced
7 misdemeanors. Because the Court will reduce the charges to misdemeanors, the Defendant · 8 statutorily eligible for a Deferred Plea Agreement with respect to the Family Violence charges.
9
10
CONCLUSION
II
12 Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot reduce the felony Terrorizing charge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Rodriguez (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.