People v. Salgado

Opinion

?: 2 = gr 5

is_n==§RluR Unum

GF eaumvl

2623 UCT 21+ PH h: -H

1

CLER ezo!m

2

3 v5 •.__ .___.. l

4

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OF GUAM

GUAM

7 7 PEOPLE OF OF GUAM,

GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE CRIMINAL CASE NO.

NO. CM0125-23

CM0125-23

8 )) GPD ReportNo.:23-09184 )

9 vs. ))

10 ) ORDER RE.

RE. DISMISSAL

DISMISSAL

)) DUE TOCIVIL

DUE TO civil COMPROMISE

COMPROMISE

11 ) 12 12 PAUL JAMES SALGADO, )) aka Paul Paul Ignacio Ignacio Salgado, )

13 DOB: DOB:05/18/1968 05/18/1968 ))

________________))

14 14

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

15 15

16 This matter came camebefore

before the

theHonorable

Honorable Judge

JudgeMaria

MariaT.

T.Cenzon

Cenzonon

onthe

theDefendant's

Defendant'sMotion

Motion

17 17 to Dismiss Due Due to

to Civil Compromise

Compromise (the

(the "Motion")

"Motion")filed

filedononJune

June26,

26,2023.

2023. On

OnJuly

July 28,

28, 2023,

2023,

18 18 the Court took took the

thematter

matterunder

underadvisement

advisement pursuant

pursuant to CVR

to CVR 7.17.(e1(e)(6)(E)

)( 6)(E) ofofthe

theLOCAL

LOCALRULES

RULES

19 19 OF THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT

COURTOF

OFGUAM

GUAMand

andAdministrative

Administrative Rule

Rule Nos.

Nos. 06-001.

06-001. After

After

20

considering the the pleadings on file with with the

the Court

Court and

and after

after reviewing

reviewingthe

theapplicable

applicablestatutes

statutes and

and

21

22 22 case law, the case law, the Court Court now

now issues

issuesthis

thisDecision

Decisionand

andOrder

OrderDENYING

DENYING the

the Defendant's

Defendant's Motion to

23 Dismiss Due Due to

to Civil

Civil Compromise.

Compromise.

24 24 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 25 Defendant was charged Defendant was chargedwith withViolation

Violationof

of a Court

Court Order

Order (As aa Misdemeanor)

Misdemeanor) via

via

26

27 Magistrate's Magistrate's Complaint Complaint on

on April

April7,

7, 2023.

2023. The

The charge

charge stems

stems from

from an

an incident on or about

aboutApril

April 5,

27 People of People ofGuam

Guam vs.

vs. Paul

Paul James

James Salgado

28 Criminal Case No.

No. CM0125-23

Order Re. Dismissal

Dismissal Due

Due toto Civil

Civil Compromise

Page 1 1 ofSf

2023, when the Defendant allegedly went of Ana I. Salgado went to the residence of ("Victiln") violating Salgado ("Victim")

1

2 a permanent restraining order against restraining order the Defendant against the in DM0449-0l Defendant in while he accompanied his DM0449-01 while

33 Compo.Affidavit shares with the Victim. See Magistrate's's Compl.

the home Eddie shares to the

Eddie to

brother Eddie of Ajdavir of

44 . . 1 Probable Cause (Apr. Probable Cause 7, 2023).

(Apr. 7, The Vlctlm 2023). The the Defendant's Victimisis the mother.

Defendant's mother.

5 19, 2023, the Victim executed a Declaration Re: Civil Compromise requesting On June 19,

6

7 that the above captioned matter be dismissed stating that "I ... and Paul James Salgado, can and 7

88 resolved our have resolved

have reached an amicable settlement and we have past differences and our past difficulties.

and difficulties.

99 request this case be and request

Salgado and

James Salgado

Paul James by Paul

to me by

full to in full

paid in

been paid

has been

restitution has All restitution 10 10 dismissed."

dismissed." See Declaration Re:

See Declaration Re: Civil Compromise (Jun. 19, 2023).

Compromise (Jun. Defendant's Motion 2023). The Defendant's Motion is 11 11 based upon the based upon the claim claim that

that restitution

restitutionhas

hasbeen

been"paid

"paidininfull"

full"totothe

theVictim

Victim and

and that

that88GCA

GCA §

12 12

13 1 80.90(b) allows for the this case the dismissal of this due to case due civil compromise.

to a civil compromise.

14 14 The People have failed to file an failed to opposition brief an opposition by the brief by due date

the due of July

date of 10, 2023, and as July 10,

15 15 of the issuance of this of Decision and Order have this Decision failed file have still failed any response, file any including a statement response, including

16 of non-opposition. See Notice of Motion, Jun. of 26, 2023.

Jun. 26, However, the 2023. However, People's failure to respond the People's

17 17 18 of its obligation to consider the merits of the motion to the Motion does not relieve the Court of 18

19 19 before it. See Petition of See Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19, 27-28.

20 20 LAW AND ANALYSIS 21 Under Under 88 GCA

GCA §80.90, "[w]hen the

§80.90, "[w]hen the defendant defendant has been charged has been charged with the commission of of

22 22 person injured by the act constituting the offense an offense which is not a felony for which the person 23 23 24 remedy by a civil has a remedy action" and "if civil action" the person "if the before, or filed person injured appears before, [her] declaration filed [her] declaration

24

25 25 in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges

26 26 may, upon payment of the "the court may,

then "the

injury," then

the injury,"

from the

satisfaction from

has received satisfaction [she] has

that [she]

27 People People of

ofGuam

Guam vs.

vs. Paul James

James Salgado

28 28 Criminal Criminal Case

Case No. CM0125-23

Order Order Re. Dismissal Due

Re. Dismissal Due to

to Civil

Civil Compromise

Page 2 ofS Page 5 costs incurred, order criminal action order the criminal dismissed." 1 action dis1nissed."1

1

2 Guam's Guam's Civil

Civil Compromise

CompromiseStatute

Statute isis based

based upon

upon California

California Penal

Penal Code

Code§§ 1377

1377 and 1378,

3 binding precedent, "California and, in the absence of binding case law [is]

"California ease persuasive absent aa compelling [is] persuasive compelling 4 .

reason to deviate." reason to v. Hall, devlate." People v. ,i 18.

Guam 11

Hall, 2004 Guam that Guam's however, that

observes, however,

CouN observes,

TheCourt

18.The Guam's 5 Civil Compromise Statute may be applied more broadly than that Compromise Statute of California's that of because Guam's California's because Guam's 6

the provisions

law did not adopt the in California provisions in excluding misdemeanors California excluding committed with felonious misdemeanors committed

7

8 intent, misdemeanors committed riotously, or misdemeanors committed upon offices committed upon of justice.

offices of

99 v. Moulton, People v. 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 10, 20 (Cal. App. Dep't Moulton, 131 1982). California Ct. 1982).

Super. Ct.

Dep't Super.

10 10 has also, since has also, Guam's adoption since Guam's of § 80.90, adoption of§ 80.90, seen seen fit

it to

to further

further exclude

exclude offenses

offenses in

in the

the nature of

of

11 11 family violence or crimes committed committed upon the elderly and children.

12 12

13 1 The Defendant Violation of Defendant here is charged with Violation Misdemeanor). The of a Court Order (As a Misdemeanor).

14 14 charged offense is not a felony.

felony. However,

However, the Court is concerned with the offense the Defendant is concerned

15 is charged with, Violation of a Court Order (As a Misdemeanor). The Court does not find that 16 16 such offense has a corresponding civil remedy with civil remedy with trespass or harassment as the Defendant civil trespass

17 17 alleged to have been in violation is alleged of orders set by violation of court, which by the court, remain in place which remain until otherwise place until otherwise

18 18

19 19 amended by the court.

20 Further, while 88 GCA Further, while GCA §§ 80.90 80.90 does

does not

not explicitly

explicitly state

state that

that the

the statute

statute is inapplicable to 21 charges of of violation of order, California court order,

of a coulT law, which California law, served as which served the basis as the for Guam's

basis for Guam's civil

22 22

23 23

24

25

26 11 This statute Civil Compromise Guam's Civil asGuam's

hereinas toherein

referredto bereferred

shallbe

statuteshall statute.

Compromise statute.

27 27 People People of vs. Paul

Guam vs. ofGuam James Salgado Paul James

28 28 Criminal Criminal Case CMOl25-23 Case No. CM0125-23

Order Re. Dismissal Order Re. Dismissal Due

Due to

to Civil

Civil Compromise

Page 3 ofS 5

compromise statute, excludes compromise statute, violation of excludes violation civil compromise statute.

of a court order charges from its civil I

2 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.90. California Penal 80.90. California Penal Code§ Code § 1377

1377 provides:

3 When the person injured by an act constituting a misdemeanormisdemeanor has a remedy by a civil civil action, the offense action, the offense may

may be be compromised, as provided in in§ 1378, expect when 1378, expect when

4 it is committed

committed as follows::

as follows

5 (a) By or upon By or an officer

upon an of justice, while in the execution of officer of of of the duties of

his or her office.

6 (b) Riotously.

With an

(c) With commit a felony.

an intent to commit

7 (d) (d) In

In violation

violation ofofariy

any court order as described in 273.65.

273.6 or 273.

in§ 273. 65.

8 (e) By By or upon any family or household member, or upon any person when or upon

the violation the violation involves

involves any

any person

person described

described in in §§ 6211

6211 of

of the Family

Family

9 Code Code oror subdivision

subdivision (b)

(b) of

of§13700

13 of

of this Code.

10 10 (f) (f) Upon

Upon an an elder,

elder, in

in violation

violation ofof §§ 368

368 of

of this

this Code or §§ 15656

15656 ofof the

Welfare and Institutions Code.

11 11 (g)

(g) Upon

Upon aa child,

child, as

as described

described in

in§ 647.6

647.6 oror 11165.6.

11165.6.

12 12 C a l. P Cal. en. C Pen. Code 1377 (empha ode §§ 1377 sis aadded).

(emphasis the legisla a lifor nia the

In CCalifornia,

dded). In tive pur legislative pose of

purpose of civil

civil

13 13 compromise is to remove from criminal prosecution which there is an adequate civil prosecution offenses for which 14 remedy instead of welfare of society in sanctions for the welfare of "subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions 15 15

16 16 general." People v. Stephen, 227 Cal. Rptr. 380, 388 (Cal. Appl.

v. Stephen, Appt. 1986).

17 17 California specifically Although California excludes certain specifically excludes offense from certain offense compromise, the firm civil compromise,

18 18 Court still exercises exercises its topermit discretion to

its discretion compromise of permitcompromise misdemeanor by of aa misdemeanor examining the same by examining

19 19 criteria followed by the criteria followed California courts:

the California thecivil cows: 1)1)ififthe injuryisiscoextensive civilinjury with the coextensive with criminal the criminal

20

violation, 2) violation; full vindication 2) whether full of the vindication of public injury the public achieved through injury can be achieved private through aa private

21

22 22 settlement, the proposed settlement; and 3) if the compromise is voluntarily entered into by the victim. People v.

proposed compromise

23 Dep't Super. Ct. 1982).

(Cal. App. Depot

10, 21-23 (Cal.

Supp. 10,

Cal.App.3d Supp.

131 Cal.App.3d

Moulton, 131 24 24 The Court recognizes that unlike California, Guam did not enact the specific prohibition 25 of violation court order violation of aa court from the order from civil compromise the civil statute. However, compromise statute. the rational However, the of rational of

26

27 exists not

prohibition exists only because not only is difficult because itit is to determine difficult to whether or not an alleged victim determine whether

People of James Salgado vs. Paul James

a/Guam vs.

28 28 Criminal Case No. CM0125-23 Criminal Case

Order Re. Dismissal Due

Re. Dismissal to Civil Due to Civil Compromise Page 44 of5

of f

actually but because actually received satisfaction for the injury, but theprosecution because the of violation prosecutionof court violation of aa court

1

2 case is of interest of the public. The order case permanent restraining The permanent the Defendant restraining order the alleged to Defendantisis alleged

3 have in DM0449-01.

matter in

violence matter

family violence

from aa family

stems from

have violated stems Family violence DM0449-01. Family cases violence cases

4 frequently involve involve victims

victimswho, because of

who,because theirstatus oftheir or relationship status or to the relationship to defendant, may be the defendant,

5 unduly influencedto unduly influenced to civil Thus, civil compromise. Thus,

civil compromise. of a violation compromise of

civil compromise ofaa court violation of order court order

6

does present "circumstances not present

does not such that "circumstances such through private that through settlementthe private settlement public is the public is fully

7

8 vindicated." Id. It vindicated." It is is clear

clear that the Defendant's that the coextensive with the offense is not coextensive Defendant's offense remedy the civil remedy

9 and suchoffense and such not meet does not

offense does meet the the threshold

thresholdfor

forpossible

possibleapplication

applicationof

of88GCA

GCA §§ 80.90. The

80.90. The

110 . . .

Victim Victimin inthis

this case

case is the Defendant's mother and theDefendant's and the Defendant's charge charge is

is aaViolation of aa Court Vlolatlon of

11 11 Order (As (As aa Misdemeanor)

Misdemeanor) relating

relating to

to the

the Victim's

Victim'spermanent order which restraining order

permanentrestraining has been which has

12

13 1 in effect for over twenty years. See DM0449-01 years. See DM0449-01 Permanent Order,Jun.

Restraining Order,

Permanent Restraining 2001.

Jun. 5, 2001.

14 14 CONCLUSION 15 15 For the

the above

above reasons,

reasons, IT IS HEREBY

HEREBY ORDERED that the

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to the Defendant's

116 Dismiss Due Due to

to Civil Compromise

Compromise is DENIED. The trial thismatter ofthis

trial of scheduled for matterisis scheduled January forJanuary

17

17, 17, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.

p.1;n.The

ThePre-Trial

Pre-Trial Conference

Conference is

is on a.m.

January 9, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. onJanuary

18 18

SO ORDERED this

ORDEREDthis am'

OCT 22Zi42023

2023

19 1

20 20

21 HON&RA L I MARI T. CENZON 22 Judge, Superior Superior Court of Guam

SERVICE VIA VIA E-MAIL

23 II acknowledge that an acknowledge that electronic an electronic

copyof theoriginal to:

e-mailed 10:

was e-mailed

original was

24 24 [Him rrltPD AA nos I

25 4,_11§, W5T/m

Date:~lsnme: Date' laB: <I ~5'Cf. 11"'

26 Asama 11,....{v,,;o 61 ~

Cf

Deputy Supe · Deputy Clerk, Supp Court of Guam 27 People People of Guam vs.

ofGz1am Paul James Salgado vs. Paul Salgado

28 28 Criminal Criminal Case

Case No. CMOl25-23

CM0125-23

Order Order Re. Dismissal Due

Re. Dismissal Due to

to Civil

Civil Compromise

Page Page 5 ofS 5