Fl FILED D
'SUPERIOR COURT
l OF GUAM Gum
2 202~ APR-8 213214 APR -8 AM? II: 36 Hi 36
3 CLERi'€ CLERK UFOF CCIURT
COURT
4 Gv- J 1 1' AI4 4, *
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
7
8 8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM,
9 No. CF0535-23 Criminal Case No. CF0535-23 GPDREPORT
REPORTno.
NO.22-17268 22-28664 23-19027 22-17268/22-28664/23-19027 10 vs.
11
1 12 ALFRED ALFRED ACEACE RUBEN, DECISION AND ORDER aka "Red "Red Martin"
Martin" GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 13 13 DOB: 11/20/2002 DOB:11/20/2002 SEVER SEVER CHARGES
14 14 Defendant. Defendant.
15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 17
18 18 This matter is before before the
the Honorable
Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino 2024, for a Tolentino on March 21, 2024, 19 19 continued hearing on Defendant Alfred Ace Ruben's Ruben's ("Defendant")
("Defendant") Motion
Motion to
to Sever
Sever Charges
20 20 ("Motion"). A11 partieswere All parties werepresent
presentatatthe
thehearing
hearing in
in person.
person. The Defendant was present with The Defendant
21 counsel counsel Isa Baza.
Baza. Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Kristine Kristine Borja
Borja was
was present
present on
on behalf of the
22
23 23 People People of Guam ("People"). Having duly considered the parties' briefs, ("People"). Having arguments, and oral arguments,
briefs, oral
24 24 the applicable case law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and GRANTS 25 the Defendant's Motion.
26 26 BACKGROUND
27 27 On or
or about
about July
July 2,
2, 2022,
2022, the
the Defendant
Defendant allegedly
allegedly damaged
damaged the
the motor
motor vehicle
vehicle of
of
28 28
Winner William William in
in Dededo,
Dededo, using
using aa silver
silver baseball
baseballbat.
bat. Mag.'s
Mag.'sCon pl. Decl.,
Compl. Aug.12,
Deel.,Aug. 2023.
12,2023
Page 1l of Page of 6
I
l On On or about November November 6,
6, 2022, the
the Defendant
Defendant allegedly
allegedly damaged the
the motor
motor vehicle
vehicle of
of Panuel
Panuel
2 1 . I . 1 Yigo, using
Ruben in Ylgo, using aa "medium "medium slzed
sized rock." Id. On
rock."Id. Onororabout
about August
August 4,
4, 2023,
2023, the
the Defendant
Defendant
3 allegedly allegedly operated operated an automobile
automobile in Dededo,
Dededo, belonging
belonging to Stanley
Stanley Hollers,
Ballers, without
without his
his
4 5 consent. Id. The Defendant consent. Id. Defendant was subsequently interviewed and subsequently interviewed and arrested arrestedaa week
week later.
later. Ppl.'s
PpL's
5
6 6 Opp., Mar. 5, 5, 2024.
2024. Based
Based on these events, the these events, the Defendant Defendantwas
wascharged
chargedwith:
with:(1)
(1) Two Counts
Counts
7 7 of CRIMINAL CRIMINALMISCHIEF MISCHIEF(As 3 rd Degree (Asaa3rd Felony), and Degree Felony); and(2)
(2)UNAUTHORIZED
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A
8 8 MOTOR MOTORVEHICLE VEHICLE(As
(Asa aMisdemeanor).
Misdemeanor).Indictment,
Indictment, Aug.
Aug. 12,
12, 2023.
2023.
9 The Defendant filed a Motion Defendant filed Motion to to Sever
Sever Charges
Charges due
due to aa misjoinder
misjoinder of
of the
the offenses
offenses
10 10
11 11 charged. Deft. Mot. charged. Deft. Mot. to to Sever,
Sever, Feb.
Feb. 21,
21, 2024.
2024. The People
People filed
filed its
its Opposition
Opposition to the
the
12 Defendant's Defendant's Motion on on March
March 5,
5, 2024.
2024. The
The Defendant
Defendant subsequently filed his subsequently filed his Reply Reply to the
the
13 13 People's People'sOpposition Oppositionon
onMarch
March13,
13,2024. OnMarch
2024.On March21,
21,2024,
2024,the
theCourt
Courtheard
heard oral
oralarguments
arguments
14 14 the Motion, and took the on the the matter matter under
underadvisement.
advisement.Mot.
Mot.Hrg.
Hrg.Min. at 11
Min. at :04:49 AM,
11:04:49 AM, Mar.
15
16 21,2024. 21, 2024.
16
17 17 DISCUSSION
18 "Two "Two(2)
(2)orormore
moreoffenses
offensesmay
maybebecharged
chargedininthe
thesame
same indictment
indictment or
or information
information in
in a
19 19 separate count separate count for for each
each offense
offense if the offenses
offenses charged
charged are
are of
ofthe
the same
same or
or similar
similar character
character or
20 are based on the are based the same same act
act or
or transaction
transactionor on two
or on two (2) or
ormore
moreacts
acts or
ortransactions
transactions connected
connected
21
22 together or constituting together or constitutingparts partsof
ofaacommon
commonscheme
schemeororplan."
plan."88G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 55.35(a).
55.35(a). This
This Guam
Guam
22
23 23 statute was originally statute was originally sourced sourcedfrom
from Rule
Rule 8 of
of the
the Federal
Federal Rules
Rules of
ofCriminal
Criminal Procedure.
Procedure.
24 24 Therefore, this Therefore, this Court may may use
use federal
federal authority to interpret authority to and guide interpret and guide the
the application
application of
of 8
25 25 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§55.35(a)
55.35(a) to
to this
this case.
case.
26 26 In US
US. v.v. Jawara,
Jawara, the defendant
defendant was indicted for for document
document Baud
fraud and
and marriage
marriage fraud
fraud
27 27
28 28 conspiracy. US US.v.v.Jaw am, 474 F.3d
Jawara, F.3d 565,
565, 570
570 (9th
(9th Cir.
Cir. 2007).
2007). The
Thesuperseding
superseding indictment
indictment
1 alleged that that the
the defendant
defendant made
made false
false statements
statements to questions
questions regarding
regarding his nationality nationality and
and
2 2 birthplace on birthplace on an an Immigration
Immigration and
andNaturalization
NaturalizationService
Serviceform.
form.Id.
Id. Prior
Prior to
to the
the trial, the
the
3 defendant moved to sever the two counts, defendant moved counts, asserting asserting misjoinder under underFederal
FederalRule
Rule of
of Criminal
4
5 Procedure 8(a) and prejudicial Procedure 8(a) prejudicial joinder jointer under Federal Rule of under Federal of Criminal Criminal Procedure
Procedure 143.
143. Id. at
at
5
6 6 571.
571. Although the district court denied the the motion,
motion, the
the Ninth
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Appeals held
held that
that
7 7 the the two charges charges were improperly
improperly joined as
as they were
were neither
neither part
part of
of the
the common
common scheme
scheme or
8 8 plan nor were they of ofthe
the same
same or
or similar
similar character.
character. Id.
Id. at
at 575-79.
575-79. The Court
Court based
based its
its holding
9 different approaches to on different to analyzing whether joinder is proper jointer is proper in
in aa case.
case.
10
11 When determining whether the the offenses are of the "same or or similar
similar character,"
character," the court
12 12 in Jawara considered the the following
following factors:
factors: the
the elements
elements of
ofthe
the statutory
statutory offenses,
offenses; the
the temporal
13 13 proximity of ofthe
the acts,
acts; the likelihood and extent extent of
of evidentiary overlap, the evidentiary overlap; the physical physical location
location of
14 14 the acts;
acts, the the modus
modus operandi
operandi of
of the
the crimes;
crimes; and
and the
the identity
identity of
of the
the victims. Jawara, 474 F.3d Jawara, 474 F.3d at
at
15 15 578. 578. While the weight weight given
given to
to aaparticular
particular factor
factor depends the specific context of the case depends on the case 16
17 17 and and the allegations in the indictment, the similar similar character of the joined offenses character of offenses should should be
18 18 either readily apparent or reasonably apparent or reasonablyinferred inferred from
from the
the face
face of the indictment. Id. In Jawara, the 19 19 » I I | » v that the
court concluded that the only onlys1m11ar1ty
similarity discernible
dlscermblefrom
from the
the indictment
indictment was that both
was that both counts
counts
20 involved immigration, which involved immigration, which cannot, cannot,ininand
andof
of itself,
itself, justify
justify joinder.
jointer. Id. at
at 579
579 (citation
(citation
21 22 omitted).
omitted).
22
23 To determine determine whether the offenses are part of whether the of aa common common scheme
scheme or
or plan,
plan, the
the could
court
24 24 asked whether"[c]omission "[c]omission of one
one of
ofthe
the offenses
offenses [[]either
]eitherdepended
asked whether depended upon [[ ]or ]or necessarily
necessarily led
25 I I I commission of
to the commisslon of the the other,
other; proof ofthe
proof of the one
one act
act [[]elther
]either constltuted
constituted [[ ]or
]or depended
depended upon
upon
26 proof of of the other."as Jawara, the other. Jawara, 474 F.3d F.3d at
at 574
574 (emphasis in original)
original) (citations
(citations omitted).
omitted). In
27
28 applying this approach, applying this approach, the court in Jawara found found no
no direct
direct connection
connection between
between the
the document
document
1 fraud and marriage fraud conspiracy other other than the
the defendant's participation in both events.
events. Id.
2 at 575.
3 A. The
Thejointer
joinderininthis
thiscase
case was improper.
4
5 The Defendant
Defendant specifically argues that the argues that the joinder
jointer of
ofthe
the three
three separate
separate offenses
offenses was
was
6 6 improper and and prejudicial, because
because "each count
count pertains
pertains to different
different circumstances,
circumstances, witnesses, witnesses,
7 7 victims, events, and therefore therefore different
different theories
theories and
anddefenses."
defenses."Deft.
Deft. Mot.
Mot. to
to Sever, Feb. 21,
victims, events, and 21, 8 8 People argue 2024. The People argue that that while
while the
the date
date of
ofthe
the incidents
incidents and the
the victims for each
each charge are
are
9 different dates for different dates and victims, each each involve
involve similar
similar conduct
conduct and
and are part of the
the same
same overall
10 10
11 11 investigation. Ppl.
investigation. Ppl.'s Opp., Mar.
's Opp., Mar. 5,
5, 2024.
2024. The People
People also
also add'that
add· that the
the Defendant
Defendant was
was
12 12 interviewed by interviewed officer and by the same officer and subsequently subsequently arrested
arrestedfor
for all
all three
three offenses. Id. at
offenses. Id. at 3--4.
3-4.
13 the Defendant
However, the Defendant replied replied to
to the
the People's
People's opposition
opposition that
that all
all three
three reasons
reasons the
the People
14 cited in support of the support of the jointer
joinder being
being proper
proper are
are "incidental
"incidental and
and irrelevant
irrelevant to the
the facts
facts and
and
15
77
circumstances of circumstances each charge.
of each charge." Reply,
Reply, Mar.
Mar. 13,
13, 2024.
2024. The
The Court
Court begins
begins its
its analysis
analysis by
by
16 16
17 17 determining whether the the joinder
jointer was
was proper
proper in
in this case.
18 1. Thecrimes 1. The crimeswere
werenot
not of
ofthe
the "same or similar character."
character."
19 19 Applying the
the analysis
analysis in Jawara,
Jawara, there
there is no
no same
same or
or similar
similar character of the joined character of
20 in this
offenses in this case case that
that is either readily apparent apparent or reasonably
reasonably inferred from the the indictment.
indictment.
21
22 22 For instance, For instance, different elements elements of proof
proofmust
must be met for each
each charge in this case.
case. To
To prove the
the
23 offense of ofCriminal
CriminalMischief,
Mischief,the
thePeople
Peoplemust
mustshow
showthat
thatthe
the Defendant
Defendant intentionally
intentionally damaged
damaged
24 24 the motor vehicle the motor vehicle of of another.
another. 99 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 34.50(d).
34.50(d). For the offense For the of Unauthorized offense of Use of Unauthorized Use of aa
25 25 Motor Motor Vehicle, Vehicle, the
the People
Peoplemust
must prove
prove that
that the
the Defendant
Defendant "operate[d]
"operate[d] an
an automobile,
automobile, aircraft,
aircraft,
26
or other
motorcycle, motorboat or other motor motor propelled
propelled vehicle
vehicle or
or vessel,
vessel, or
orsailboat,
sailboat, without
without consent
consent
27 28 28 of of the the owner owner or
or other personauthorized other person authorizedtotogive giveconsent."
consent." 99G.C.A.
G.C.A. §
§ 43.65(a).
43.65(a).
l The offenses also took place in three separate residences across two different villages of of
2 Guam. Guam. While the Hist first and
and second
second counts
counts of the
the first
first charge
charge allegedly
allegedly occurred in July and occurred in
3 November of 2022 respectively, November the second respectively, the second charge charge allegedly
allegedly took
took place
place in August of
of 2023.
2023.
4 5 Indictment, Aug. 12, 12, 2023. Based on the dates of of the
the events,
events, itit isis Lmlikely unlikely that evidence of any 5
66 of the offenses offenses overlapped with the others others because
because each event occurred occurred between four
four to nine
77 months apart from the other. 8 Additionally, there Additionally, there does
does not appear to be a particular way or method of doing the crimes 9 characteristic of
which was characteristic of the the Defendant.
Defendant.Although
Although both
both counts
countsof
of Criminal
Criminal Mischief
Mischief involve
involve
10 10
11 damaging damaging a vehicle with aa weapon, weapon, one
one count
count involved
involved aa silver
silver baseball
baseball bat, while the other other
12 count involved a medium-sized rock.
rock. Mag.'s Comal.
Compl. Decl.,
Deel., Aug.
Aug. 12,
12, 2023. The second charge 13 13 also did not involve any weapon involve any weapon to
to operate the
the vehicle.
vehicle.
14 14 Fmher, Further, none
none of
ofthe
thevictims
victims are
are similar
similarininrelation
relation to
to the defendant. ItIt appears the defendant. appears that the 15 15 16 first first victim only knew of of the
the Defendant
Defendant through
through his daughter,
daughter, Love William. Id. The second second
16
17 17 victim was the Defendant's uncle, uncle; the only
only victim
victim that
that was
was related
related to
to the
the Defendant.
Defendant. Id. And
18 18 the third victim appeared to be a stranger to the defendant. Id.
Id. In considering the factors that the 19 n u . . I | 1 court in Jawara applled applied in its reasoning, thls this Court finds that the offenses were not of the same 20 or similar similar character tojustify character to justify joinder jointer in
inthis
this case.
case.
21
2. The
Thealleged
allegedcrimes
crimesdid
didnot
notconstitute
constitute part
partof
ofaa "common
"common scheme or plan."
scheme or plan."
22 22
23 When applying the Jawara court's court's analysis
analysis for
for jointer
joinder of
ofcrimes
crimes as
as parts
parts of
of a common
24 24 scheme scheme or plan, plan, none of
of the
the alleged
alleged offenses
offenses depended
depended upon
upon or necessarily led to the necessarily led the
25 commission of of the other,
other; nor does proof
proof of
of one offense constitute constitute or depend upon proof of of the
26 other. There is no direct connection to the alleged offenses other. There offenses that occurred at different times of of
27 28 28 the year within the within different different villages, and involved villages, and different victims involved different victims with with their
their own
own set of
of
1 circumstances. The damage circumstances. The damagetoto William's William's car window in
in July
July 2022,
2022, the damage
damage to Ruben's
Ruben's
2 window in in November
November2022,
2022, or
or the
the unauthorized useofHallers's unauthorized use of Hallers's vehicle vehicle in
in August
August 2023
2023 did not
3 depend depend on or lead lead to
to the
the commission
commission of
ofeach
eachother.
other. These
Thesewere
werethree
threedisparate,
disparate, unrelated
unrelated
4
instances of criminal instances of criminal conduct whose only conduct whose only commonality commonality is that it involved involved another
another person's
person's
5
6 vehicle. 7 Therefore, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that the three
three charged
charged offenses
offenses were not parts
parts of a common
8 scheme plan. Because scheme or plan. Because the thejoined
joined offenses are not of of the
the same
same or similar character, part of character, or part
9 a common scheme scheme or
or plan,
plan,joinder
jointer in
in this
this case
case was improper.
improper.
10 10
11 11 B. The
Theappropriate
appropriateremedy
remedyfor
formisjoinder
misjoinderisiseverance
severanceof
ofthe
the charges.
charges.
12 12 In the Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motionand
and Reply,
Reply,he
heseeks
seeks severance
severance of
ofthe
thecharges
charges and
and separate
separate
13 trials because becauseof
of the
the improper
improperjoinder
jointer and
and its
its prejudicial
prejudicialeffects.
effects. Deft.
Deft. Mot. to Sever,
Sever, Feb. 21,
21, ·
14 14 2024, 2024; Reply, Mar.
Mar. 13,
13, 2024.
2024. "If
"Ifititappears
appears that
that aa defendant
defendant or the government is prejudiced by 15 a joinder jointer of ofoffenses
offensesor
orofofdefendants
defendants in
in an
an indictment by such indictment or information or by suchjoinder jointer for a
16
17 17 trial together, the court may order an election or or separate
separate trials of counts, severance of counts, grant a severance
18 defendants orprovide defendants or providewhatever whateverother
otherrelief
reliefjustice requires."
requires." 8
8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 65.35.
65.35.
19 Because jointer of Because joinder ofthe
the offenses
offensesininthis
thiscase
caseisisimproper,
improper, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that severance
severance
20 and subsequentadjudication and subsequent adj indicationofofeach eachoffense
offensein
in this
this case
case is
is appropriate.
appropriate.
21
22 CONCLUSION
For the reasons statedabove, reasons stated above,the
theCourt
Courthereby
herebyGRANTS
GRANTS the Defendant's
Defendant's Motion to
23 23
24 Sever Sever the the Charges
Charges and ORDERS the adjudication indicationof
of each subsequent
subsequentto
to the
the other.
other.
25 APR U a zé?a"i; '
26 26 SO ORDERED, this ay of
J
H . * f
\
27 , . __ *
x ,- ""
t"..__
28 28 HONORABLE HONORABLF; ArJntR.W9/E~QLENTINO TQLENTINO Judge, Superior Co_urt_of Judge, Superior Court-ofQ11@rr"»-
_Q!l_a_m-✓,•·, -- _.....:,·: ___. __ ...
-