People v. Rodriguez
This text of People v. Rodriguez (People v. Rodriguez) 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
tr
I1LE CLERK'OF"COURT 1 20Z5 EOV 18 AHH=h5 2 SU1ER¥Ui~ CGURT \ 3 @FGUAM IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE 6 Plaintiff, Cnmlnal Criminal Case No. CF0011-21 CF00l / CF0586-20 7
8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER RE: LIMITED 9 DANNY VINCENT RODRIGUEZ aka REMAND ORDER 10 DANIEL VINCENT RODRIGUEZ,
111 Defendant. 12
13 INTRODUCTION
14 This matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable John C.Terlaje JohnC. Terlaje on November 10, 2025, for November 10, for aa 15 Limited Limited Remand Remand Order. Assistant Attorney Order. Assistant Attorney General General Christine ChristineSantos SantosTenorio Tenorio("AAG") ("AAG") appeared appeared 16 on behalf of the People of Guam. Attorney on AttorneyPeter Peter C. C. Perez Perezappeared appeared on on behalf of of Danny Vincent 17
18 Rodriguez. Rodriguez.
19 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACK
20 Rodriguez was Rodriguez was charged charged with withnine nine total total counts counts of of Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct Conduct and and was on on 21 for these trial for these charges charges in in January January and andFebruary Februaryof 2024. See of 2024. See Second SecondAmended Amended Indictment (Feb. 22 23, 2024). 2024). Neither Neitherthe the written written transcript transcript nor the audio recordings of ofthe the trial included included aa 23
24 discussion regarding regarding Rodriguez's Rodriguez's right to testify. See Limited Limited Remand Order (Sept. 26, 2025).
25 AAGargued However,AAG However, arguedbefore beforethe theSupreme SupremeCourt Courthat thatshe she recalled recalledthis this Court Court asking asking either either 26 Rodriguez Rodriguez or or his his trial trial counsel he wanted counsel whether he wantedto testify. Id to testify. Id The The People People believed believedthat that this this 27
28 Page Page l1 of of 33 exchange was was inadvertently inadvertentlyunrecorded. unrecorded.Id.; Id, Declaration Declarationof of Counsel Counsel(Nov. (Nov. 6, 6, 2025). 2025). However, However, 11
2 2 Rodriguez denied Rodriguez denied that that such an an exchange exchangetook tookplace. place.Limited Limited Remand Order (Sept. (Sept. 26, 2025).
3 Rodriguez timely Rodriguez timelyappealed appealedhis his conviction convictionand andargued argued before beforethe the Supreme Supreme Court Court that that he 4 4 did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily voluntarily waive his right to testify. See to testify. See id. The Supreme id The Supreme 5 ; ofGuam Court of Guam ordered ordered the the Court Court to to supplement supplement the record. The The Court Court requested requested aa hearing on on the 6 7 matter on November 10, 2025. November 10, 2025. The AAG filedher AAG tiled herDeclaration ofCounsel Declarationof Counsel outlining outlining what what she she 7
8 remembers about about the theexchange exchangeon onNovember November 6, 6, 2025. 2025. Rodriguez Rodriguez filed a Submission of
9 9 Declaration written Declaration written by Curtis Van veld on Van de veld on November November10, 10,2025 2025. 10 10 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 11 ll In a criminal appeal, In appeal, the Supreme Court "may, "may, ififproper, proper,remand remandthe the cause cause to the the trial court 12 12 13 13 for for such such further proceedings as further proceedings as may may be be just just under underthe thecircumstances." circumstances."88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 130.60 130.60 (2005).
14 14 The Supreme Supreme Court has held that it may remand remand to to the the trial trial court court to to amend amend or or supplement supplement the the 15 15 record. See See People People v. Rugante, Rugante, CRA17-009 CRAl 7-009 (Ltd. Rem. Order Order (Aug. 3, 3, 2018)), 2018)); People v. v. 16 16 Crisostomo, CRA24-004 CRA24-004 (Ltd. (Ltd. Rem. Rem. Order Order (July (July 2, 2, 2024)). 2024)). Concerned Concerned primarily with with allegations allegations 17 17 18 of violations of violations under Brady v. Maryland, under Brady Maryland, 373 373 U.S. 83 83 (1964), (1964), and Giglio v.v. United and Giulio United States, States, 405 U.S. 18 19 19 150 150 (1972), those those orders orders stated stated the general rule that "an "an appellate appellate court court may may order order remand remand when
20 20 the record is so the so incomplete incomplete that that itit cannot cannot pronounce pronounce definitely definitelyupon upon the the presented presented issues, issues, or the the 21 parties fail to produce produce available available material materialevidence." evidence." Rugante, CRA CRA17-009 17-009 (Ltd. (Ltd. Rem. Rem. Order Order at 2). 22 Guam Rule of Appellate Appellate Procedure Procedure 7(e) 7(e)provides providesaaprocedural procedural mechanism mechanism for for trial trial courts courts 23 24 to supplement the the record record of a case on appeal: appeal: 24 25 If anything material Ifanything material to either party party is omitted from or or misstated misstated in the the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and accident, the and a supplemental supplemental record may 26 be certified and forwarded: forwarded: 27
28 Page 2 of of 3 (A)on (A) onstipulation stipulation of ofthe the parties, parties; 11 (B)by (B) bythe theSuperior SuperiorCourt Courtbefore beforeor orafter afterthe the record record has has been forwarded; forwarded, or 2 (C) Bythe (C) By theSupreme Supreme Court. Court.
3 P. 7(e)(2). Guam R. App. P. 7(e)(2).Under Underthe the parallel parallel Federal Federal Rule of Appellate Appellate Procedure Procedure lO(e), l0(e), aa trial trial 4 court generally can can supplement the record supplement the record on on appeal with any appealwith any information information about aboutwhat what"in "in fact" fact" 5 occurred before the thetrial trial court. court United UnitedStates States v. v. Banks, 405 F.3d 559,567 567(7th (7th Cir. Cir. 2005). 2005). However, However, 6 7 or enlarge used to add to or it "cannot be used enlarge the the record record on on appeal appeal to to include include material which was not 7
8g before the [trial] before United States [trial] court." United States v. Walker, Walker, 601 601 F.2d 1051, 1054 (9th (9th Cir. 1979). But, federal
9 9 courts have held held that unrecorded verbal statements statements can be reconstructed to support the the record. record.See See 10 10 Marion Marron v. All. Refin. v. Atl. Rein. Co., 176 176 F.2d 313, 315 (3d 313, 315 (3d Cir. Cir. 1949). 11 11 The Court reviewed reviewed the the trial trial recordings recordings and the the recollections of of both both trial attorneys. attorneys. The 12 12 Court recalls that that an exchange exchange took place place during during aa break break at at the the trial trial that that was was inadvertently inadvertently 13 13 14 14 unrecorded. The Court finds unrecorded. The finds that that the the recollection recollection of the AAG AAGwas wasan anaccurate accurate representation representation of
15 15 what occurred. occurred. Declaration Declaration of Counsel (Nov. of Counsel 6, 2025). (Nov. 6, during the thatduring Namely,that 2025). Namely, the trial trial' sometime sometime in in 16 16 January orFebruary January or Februaryof of 2024, 2024, the theCourt Courtinquired inquired about aboutwhether whetherAttorney Attorney Van Van dh de veld veld had had discussed 17 17 with Rodriguez about whether Rodriguez about whether Rodriguez would would testify.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Rodriguez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-superctguam-2025.