FJLE[) CLER!a{ OF COURT 1
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM St.n=·Ef=?f Oh¼ r-:r-,f IRT 3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. cifli~j~j5A-~ 4 Police Report Nos. 25-0067 / 25-7331 / 25-07243 v. 5 FRANKIE CHARLES ROSALIN, DECISION AND ORDER 6 DOB: 03/05/1985 DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 7 TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. 8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on April 24, 2026 for
11 hearing on Frankie Charles Rosalin' s ("Defendant's") Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Assistant
12 Attorney General Lucas Wood represents the People, and Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje represents
13 Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues
14 the following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
15 BACKGROUND
16 On March 12, 2025, Defendant allegedly "repeatedly struck and damaged an office door"
17 with his fists at the Port Authority of Guam. See Indictment (Apr. 14, 2025). The People would
18 proceed to initiate three separate criminal cases against Defendant for his alleged actions on that
19 day.
20 The first case is CM0128-25. The People brought that case before a grand jury on April 10,
21 2025 seeking an indictment on charges of Terrorizing (as a 3rd Degree Felony), Criminal Mischief
22 (as a Misdemeanor), Assault (as a Misdemeanor), Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor),
23 and Harassment (as a Petty Misdemeanor). See CM0128-25 Indictment (Apr. 10, 2025). That
24 grand jury only found probable cause to indict Defendant on a single charge of Disorderly Conduct
25 (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Id. The People successfully moved to dismiss CM0128-25 without
26 prejudice so they could instead pursue charges in the above-captioned case. See CM0128-25
27 Motion & Order for Dismissal (Apr. 18, 2025).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 1 of6 1 The second case is CM0133-25, the above-captioned case. The People brought this case 2 before a grand jury on April 14, 2025, seeking an indictment on the same five charges. See
3 Indictment (Apr. 14, 2025). However, the grand jury again only found probable cause to indict 4 Defendant on a single charge of Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Id.
5 The third case is CM0154-25. This time, the People pursued only the four misdemeanor and 6 petty misdemeanor offenses initially sought, but not the felony terrorizing charge. See CM0154-25
7 Magistrate's Complaint (Apr. 29, 2025). By prosecuting these offenses through a complaint rather 8 than an indictment, the People avoided the need for a grand jury and were able to proceed with the 9 charges following a magistrate judge's finding of probable cause. See 8 G.C.A. § 15.20(a). The People now wish to dismiss the above-captioned case without prejudice so they can 11 instead pursue the charges in CM0154-25. See People's Second Motion to Dismiss Without 12 Prejudice (Jun. 20, 2025).
13 Defendant subsequently filed his Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on April 10, 2026.
14 Defendant argues the People: (i) abused the grand jury process by seeking multiple indictments for 15 the same offenses, and (ii) brought their current Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in bad faith 16 after improperly securing probable cause findings for the three additional misdemeanor / petty 17 misdemeanor charges in CM0154-25. See Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice at 4-5 (Apr. 10, 2026). 18 On April 23, 2026, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with 19 Prejudice ("Opposition"). The People claim Defendant failed to show any bad faith concerning
20 their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. See Opposition at 2-3 (Apr. 23, 2026).
21 The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2026. The parties agreed to forgo oral arguments and 22 instead submit on their briefs. The Court subsequently took the matter under advisement. 23 DISCUSSION
24 I. Preliminary Law:
25 "The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, 26 information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate ... The prosecuting attorney 27 shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosalin Page 2 of6 1 dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall set forth the reasons for granting such 2 leave." See 8 G.C.A. § 80.70(a).
3 "The prosecutor's good or bad faith in bringing the motion is the determining factor in 4 granting or denying the motion." See People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19, 51. The government is 5 given "a presumption of good faith in bringing" a motion to dismiss. Id. at , 51. This presumption 6 can be "rebutted upon a showing of a lack of good faith." Id. at, 53.
7 As a general rule, a court shall "deny, but not dismiss with prejudice a prosecutor's motion 8 o dismiss under section 80.70(a) when the court finds that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith." 9 d. at, 69. However, "an exception occurs when a trial court grants a motion to dismiss without 10 rejudice and later discovers that the earlier motion was made in bad faith; under these limited 11 circumstances the trial court may dismiss the indictment with prejudice after a subsequent 12 indictment." Id. at 69.
13 II. Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the People acted in good faith when
14 bringing their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
15 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice has two core arguments: (i) that the People 16 abused the grand jury process by seeking multiple indictments for the same offenses, and (ii) that the 17 eople acted in bad faith by avoiding the grand jury when securing probable cause findings for the 18 isdemeanor and petty misdemeanor charges in CM0154-25. See Motion to Dismiss with
19 rejudice at 4-5 (Apr. 10, 2026). 20 a. Defendant's Double Jeopardy rights were not violated when the People initiated
21 multiple grand jury hearings for the same offenses.
22 "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from 23 epeated prosecutions for the same offense." See People v. Pablo, 2016 Guam 29 , 23. "To 24 determine whether a double jeopardy violation exists, the court must first determine whether 25 ·eopardy has previously attached. This is because an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can 26 suffer double jeopardy." See People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26, 18.
27 In criminal matters, jeopardy can attach in one of three ways: (i) "In a jury trial, jeopardy 28 attaches once the jury is empaneled and sworn." See State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 47 (1982); (ii)
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 3 of6 1 "In a nonjury trial. .. jeopardy does not attach until the court begins to hear evidence from when a
2 actual determination of guilt or innocence can be made." See Kopp v. Ficher, 811 F.Supp.2d 696,
3 712 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); (iii) Absent a trial, jeopardy attaches following any court order that "imposed
4 criminal sanctions." See People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ,r 18.
5 The events at issue here do not represent any of the above three scenarios. The Double
6 Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach to grand jury proceedings because grand
7 ·uries are separate from trials.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FJLE[) CLER!a{ OF COURT 1
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM St.n=·Ef=?f Oh¼ r-:r-,f IRT 3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. cifli~j~j5A-~ 4 Police Report Nos. 25-0067 / 25-7331 / 25-07243 v. 5 FRANKIE CHARLES ROSALIN, DECISION AND ORDER 6 DOB: 03/05/1985 DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 7 TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. 8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on April 24, 2026 for
11 hearing on Frankie Charles Rosalin' s ("Defendant's") Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Assistant
12 Attorney General Lucas Wood represents the People, and Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje represents
13 Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues
14 the following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
15 BACKGROUND
16 On March 12, 2025, Defendant allegedly "repeatedly struck and damaged an office door"
17 with his fists at the Port Authority of Guam. See Indictment (Apr. 14, 2025). The People would
18 proceed to initiate three separate criminal cases against Defendant for his alleged actions on that
19 day.
20 The first case is CM0128-25. The People brought that case before a grand jury on April 10,
21 2025 seeking an indictment on charges of Terrorizing (as a 3rd Degree Felony), Criminal Mischief
22 (as a Misdemeanor), Assault (as a Misdemeanor), Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor),
23 and Harassment (as a Petty Misdemeanor). See CM0128-25 Indictment (Apr. 10, 2025). That
24 grand jury only found probable cause to indict Defendant on a single charge of Disorderly Conduct
25 (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Id. The People successfully moved to dismiss CM0128-25 without
26 prejudice so they could instead pursue charges in the above-captioned case. See CM0128-25
27 Motion & Order for Dismissal (Apr. 18, 2025).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 1 of6 1 The second case is CM0133-25, the above-captioned case. The People brought this case 2 before a grand jury on April 14, 2025, seeking an indictment on the same five charges. See
3 Indictment (Apr. 14, 2025). However, the grand jury again only found probable cause to indict 4 Defendant on a single charge of Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Id.
5 The third case is CM0154-25. This time, the People pursued only the four misdemeanor and 6 petty misdemeanor offenses initially sought, but not the felony terrorizing charge. See CM0154-25
7 Magistrate's Complaint (Apr. 29, 2025). By prosecuting these offenses through a complaint rather 8 than an indictment, the People avoided the need for a grand jury and were able to proceed with the 9 charges following a magistrate judge's finding of probable cause. See 8 G.C.A. § 15.20(a). The People now wish to dismiss the above-captioned case without prejudice so they can 11 instead pursue the charges in CM0154-25. See People's Second Motion to Dismiss Without 12 Prejudice (Jun. 20, 2025).
13 Defendant subsequently filed his Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on April 10, 2026.
14 Defendant argues the People: (i) abused the grand jury process by seeking multiple indictments for 15 the same offenses, and (ii) brought their current Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in bad faith 16 after improperly securing probable cause findings for the three additional misdemeanor / petty 17 misdemeanor charges in CM0154-25. See Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice at 4-5 (Apr. 10, 2026). 18 On April 23, 2026, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with 19 Prejudice ("Opposition"). The People claim Defendant failed to show any bad faith concerning
20 their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. See Opposition at 2-3 (Apr. 23, 2026).
21 The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2026. The parties agreed to forgo oral arguments and 22 instead submit on their briefs. The Court subsequently took the matter under advisement. 23 DISCUSSION
24 I. Preliminary Law:
25 "The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, 26 information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate ... The prosecuting attorney 27 shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosalin Page 2 of6 1 dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall set forth the reasons for granting such 2 leave." See 8 G.C.A. § 80.70(a).
3 "The prosecutor's good or bad faith in bringing the motion is the determining factor in 4 granting or denying the motion." See People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19, 51. The government is 5 given "a presumption of good faith in bringing" a motion to dismiss. Id. at , 51. This presumption 6 can be "rebutted upon a showing of a lack of good faith." Id. at, 53.
7 As a general rule, a court shall "deny, but not dismiss with prejudice a prosecutor's motion 8 o dismiss under section 80.70(a) when the court finds that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith." 9 d. at, 69. However, "an exception occurs when a trial court grants a motion to dismiss without 10 rejudice and later discovers that the earlier motion was made in bad faith; under these limited 11 circumstances the trial court may dismiss the indictment with prejudice after a subsequent 12 indictment." Id. at 69.
13 II. Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the People acted in good faith when
14 bringing their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
15 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice has two core arguments: (i) that the People 16 abused the grand jury process by seeking multiple indictments for the same offenses, and (ii) that the 17 eople acted in bad faith by avoiding the grand jury when securing probable cause findings for the 18 isdemeanor and petty misdemeanor charges in CM0154-25. See Motion to Dismiss with
19 rejudice at 4-5 (Apr. 10, 2026). 20 a. Defendant's Double Jeopardy rights were not violated when the People initiated
21 multiple grand jury hearings for the same offenses.
22 "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from 23 epeated prosecutions for the same offense." See People v. Pablo, 2016 Guam 29 , 23. "To 24 determine whether a double jeopardy violation exists, the court must first determine whether 25 ·eopardy has previously attached. This is because an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can 26 suffer double jeopardy." See People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26, 18.
27 In criminal matters, jeopardy can attach in one of three ways: (i) "In a jury trial, jeopardy 28 attaches once the jury is empaneled and sworn." See State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 47 (1982); (ii)
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 3 of6 1 "In a nonjury trial. .. jeopardy does not attach until the court begins to hear evidence from when a
2 actual determination of guilt or innocence can be made." See Kopp v. Ficher, 811 F.Supp.2d 696,
3 712 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); (iii) Absent a trial, jeopardy attaches following any court order that "imposed
4 criminal sanctions." See People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ,r 18.
5 The events at issue here do not represent any of the above three scenarios. The Double
6 Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach to grand jury proceedings because grand
7 ·uries are separate from trials. Furthermore, Defendant has not yet been subject to any court order
8 · posing criminal sanctions for the charges at issue. Therefore, the People had every right to
9 initiate multiple grand jury proceedings against Defendant for the same offenses.
10 b. The People did not act in bad faith by circumventing the need for a grand jury
11 in CM0154-25 because proceeding with those charges still required a
12 magistrate judge's probable cause finding.
13 The crux of Defendant's argument is that the People acted in bad faith by choosing not to
14 ursue the felony terrorizing charge in CM0154-25 so that the remaining misdemeanor and petty
15 isdemeanor offenses would be subject to a lesser standard of scrutiny. See Motion to Dismiss with
16 rejudice at 5 (Apr. 10, 2026).
17 However, this argument fails because criminal charges initiated by indictment and those
18 initiated by complaint both require the same finding of probable cause that an offense has been
19 committed and that the defendant has committed it. See 8 G.C.A. §§ 15.20(a) & 50.54(b). The
20 robable cause standard applied to a magistrate judge in a complaint is the same standard applied to
21 a grand jury in an indictment.
22 It could be argued that achieving a probable cause finding is easier through a complaint than
23 an indictment because complaints only require the probable cause finding of one magistrate judge
24 hereas indictments require "the concurrence of twelve (12) or more jurors". See 8 G.C.A. § 50.58.
25 However, that still does not rebut the presumption of good faith on the People. As indicated,
26 he same probable cause standard applies in both proceedings. Furthermore, the People had the right
27 o continue seeking probable cause determinations on those offenses because Defendant had not yet
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 4 of6 1 een put in jeopardy of them. Simply put, Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that the
2 eople brought their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in good faith.
3 III. The People's complied with all statutory requirements and presented a good faith
4 reason for filing their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
5 When bringing a motion to dismiss, "the prosecutor's good or bad faith ... is the determining
6 factor in granting or denying the motion." See People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ,r 51. "The trial
7 court at the very least must know the prosecutor's reasons for seeking to dismiss the indictment and
8 he facts underlying the prosecutor's decision." Id. at ,r 66
9 Here, the People's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice was accompanied by a statement of
10 heir reasons in seeking dismissal. The People explained that the remaining Disorderly Conduct (as
11 a Petty Misdemeanor) charge was being prosecuted in CM0154-25. See People's Second Motion to
12 ismiss Without Prejudice (Jun. 20, 2025). This is a good faith reason to seek dismissal without
13 rejudice because it would streamline court proceedings by consolidating all criminal charges
14 elating to Defendant's alleged March 12, 2025 actions into a single case rather than spreading them
15 out over multiple cases. This good faith reason combined with Defendant's failure to show bad faith
16 reserves the People's ability to pursue the Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor) charge in
17 CM0154-25.
18 CONCLUSION
19 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with
20 Prejudice. Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the People acted in good faith when
21 bringing their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice because: (i) initiating multiple criminal
22 proceedings did not violate Defendant's Double Jeopardy rights, and (ii) initiating the charges
23 through a complaint rather than an indictment did not materially change the probable cause finding
24 required for the charges to proceed. Furthermore, the People complied with all statutory
25 requirements and presented a good faith argument supporting their Motion to Dismiss Without
26 Prejudice.
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 5 of6 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this June 12, 2026. 2 3
4 HONORABLE ALBERT C. LAMORENA, III 5 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 6
20 21
22 23
26 27
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice CM0133-25, People of Guam v. Frankie Charles Rosa/in Page 6 of6