People v. Rodriguez

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. And

And that

that Attorney Van

Van dh

de veld told

told the

18 18 19 19 whether he Court he would ask his client about whether he would would testify

testify or not.

20 CONCLUSION US

21 Therefore, the Therefore, the Court

Court supplements the trial supplements the trial record record with the

the above facts.

facts.

22

23 S0 SO ORDERED, this_·_/_!+-/_1 ORDERED,this HJXIZS _g--+/_2_5_ _ I I

24

25 SERVICE SERVICIE WA

VUAE-svlAiL

E-MAIL

II acknowledge

acknowledge that

that an

an electronic

electronic

copy of the

the original

original was e-mailed Io:

to:

26 A- t,. , Pf -· Pu~"'l/ Pro.( Homo&= BLEAIOHNC. c. TERLAJE 27 Judge, Superior Court of of Guam

Guam

28 Date" / H M - ll '-S`l41v~ Page 3 of Page of 3

A»~#»»»f» Cw*/ Deputy Clerk, Supbdor Court of Guam