People v. Sablan, G.P.
This text of People v. Sablan, G.P. (People v. Sablan, G.P.) 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
--_ lllll I'll I III IIIIIII I
r
»Lr;LEg 5U?&il2?QR C€3§¥BT 1
2 -zalstanv 29 AHIHZB gLEi§%€ GF I 3
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF G@xm 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO: CF0284-18 6 ) PLAINTIFF ) 7 ) ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: 8 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISNIISS ) ) DUE TO CIVIL COMPROMISE 9 ) GREGORIO PANGELINAN SABLAN, ) 10 DOB: 08/24/1964, ) ) 11 DEFENDANT. ) ) 12 ) ) 13
14 Introduction
15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on April 29, 2019 for a
16 Criminal Trial Setting, as well as a hearing on Defendant Gregorio Pangelinan Sablan's
17 ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise. Defendant was not present at the
18 hearing. Defendant is represented by Attorney Peter Sabian of the Public Defender's Office, who
19 was present at the hearing. Attorney Thomas Neumann was present for the People of Guam
20 ("People"). At the hearing, the Court DENIED the Motion from the bench. The Court now
21 issues this DECISION and ORDER memorializing its ruling.
22 Background
23 Defendant was charged with THEFT (As a Second Degree Felony) and THEFT BY
24 RECEWING (As a Second Degree Felony) in this matter. Indictment (May 21, 2018).1 On
25 March 7, 2019, the victim, Mr. Myung Jin Park ("Victim") filed an affidavit in support of the
26 1 Defendant was indicted alongside co-Defendant Peter Hans, and the matter has not been severed. However, the 27 Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise was filed only on behalf of the Defendant named in the caption, and does not implicate co-Defendant Hans. 28
People v. Serbian, CF0284-18 D&O re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise . Page 1 of 4 1 Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise. Aff. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Due to Civil
2 Compromise (Mar. 7, 2019). In that affidavit, Victim asserted that he did not want to pursue the
3 case, and wished for the Government to dismiss the matter. Id. He further stated that he waived
4 all claims for restitution and had "received satisfaction" in the matter. Id.
5 In an accompanying document, Defendant filed a Stipulation to Dismiss Due to Civil
6 Compromise on March 15, 2019. Stip. to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise (Mar. 15, 2019). In
7 the stipulation, both Defendant and the People agreed to dismiss the matter.
8 At a March 26, 2019 Pre-Trial Conference, Defendant stated his Motion to Dismiss on
9 the record. Minute Entry (Mar. 26, 2019).2 The Court expressed concerns about granting the
10 Motion, despite the People's lack of objection. Id. The Court stated on the record that based on
11 what was filed, there was not enough for the Court to grant a Motion to Dismiss under Guam's
12 Civil Compromise statute. Id. The Court set a continued hearing on Defendant's Motion. Id.3
13 At the April 29, 2019, continued hearing, Defendant again requested that the Court
14 dismiss the matter due to civil compromise, based on the affidavit filed by the Victim. Minute
15 Entry (Apr. 29, 2019). Despite no objection from the People, the Court noted that based on the
16 evidence presented, as well as the nature of the charges, the matter could not be dismissed under
17 the Civil Compromise statute. Id. Thus, the Court DENIED the Motion from the bench. Id.
18 Discussion
19 Under 8 GCA § 80.90, "[w]hen the defendant has been charged with the commission of
20 an offense which is not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense
21 has a remedy by a civil action" and "if the person injured appears before, or files his declaration
22 in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges
23 that he has received satisfaction for the injury," then "the court may, upon payment of the costs
24 incurred, order the criminal action dismissed." 8 GCA §§ 80.90(a)-(b) (emphasis added).
25 2 Defendant was not present at the March 26, 2019, hearing. However, counsel for Defendant, Attorney Peter 26 Sablan, was present at this hearing and raised the Motion on Defendant's behalf. 3 Per the Minute Entry from the March 26, 2019, hearing, the continued hearing was originally set for April 30, 27 2019. However, the Court moved the hearing to April 29, 2019, and notified all parties. See Minute Entry (Apr. 29, 2019). 28
People v. Serbian; CF0284-18 D&O re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise Page 2 of 4 a 1 Based on a strict reading of the statute, Defendant's Motion must be denied at the outset.
2 Defendant was charged with two felony charges. Section 80.90 is clear in that it only allows for
3 the dismissal of misdemeanor charges that have been resolved through civil compromise
4 between the victim and the defendant. Thus, because Defendant's charges do not fall under the
5 types of matters which can be dismissed under 8 GCA§ 80.90, the Court must deny the Motion.
6 Even if the Court were to assume that Defendant's charges were misdemeanors, and thus
7 fell under the purview of the statute, the Court would still be hesitant to grant the Motion.
8 Guam's Civil Compromise statute is based upon California Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378 and in
9 the absence of binding precedent, "California case law [is] Persuasive absent a compelling reason
10 to deviate." People v. Hall, 2004. Guam 12 <][ 18. In California, the legislative purpose of civil
ll compromise is to remove from criminal prosecution offenses for which there is an adequate civil
12 remedy instead of "subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of society in
13 general." People it Stephen, 227 Cal. Rptr. 380, 388 (Cal. App. Dep't Super Ct. 1986).
14 Appropriate factors to consider include: (1) whether the civil injury was coextensive with the
15 criminal violation, (2) whether the circumstances were such that through private settlement the
16 injury to the public was fully vindicated, and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was
17 made voluntarily. People v. Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. 761, 767-68 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct.
18 1982).
19 Based on Victim's affidavit, the Court cannot conclude with any certainty that these three
20 factors fall in favor of dismissing the case due to civil compromise. While the civil injury
21 suffered by Victim, stolen property, is coextensive with the criminal violation of theft, nowhere
22 in the affidavit does it suggest that the public was "fully vindicated" through private settlement.
23 In his affidavit, Victim stated that he did not want to move forward with the case, and that he
24 waived all claims to restitution. Ostensibly, Victim did not receive any form of monetary or
25 material compensation from the Defendant. Suggesting that Victim has "received satisfaction" in
26 this matter is not sufficient to prove to this Court that the requirements of the civil compromise
27 statute have been met. Regarding prong three, there is no evidence of any settlement agreement
28 People v. Serbian; CF0284-18 D&O re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise if Page 3 of 4 1 between Victim and Defendant. Rather, Victim merely expressed a desire to not pursue the
2 matter. This does not satisfy the three factors mentioned in Moulton. Thus, based on the evidence
3 presented ro the Court, there is no showing of a private settlement between the Victim and the
4 Defendant such that "the public was fully vindicated."
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Sablan, G.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sablan-gp-superctguam-2019.