People v. Santiago, Jr.

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM1250-09 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER EDWARD SANTIAGO, JR., ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) 8

9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II dismiss, filed April 1, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on April 29, 2013. Assistant Attorney 12 General James C. Collins appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant Public Defender 13 Terrance A. Long represented Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral 14 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 14, 2009, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with 17 driving under the influence of alcohol. The complaint was filed contemporaneously with a copy 18

April28, 2010 pursuant to 8 GCA Chapter 25. There is no record that a summons or complaint 20 was served upon Defendant and he did not appear on April28, 2010. Defendant's presence was 21 procured in 2012 after a series of bench warrants and appearances in a separate case. There is 22 no record that Defendant was arraigned in this case. 23 On April 1, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss because he was not 24 promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 2011 25 Guam 14. Defendant argues that the delay is not excused by good cause and that the complaint 26 should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that the complaint can only be 27 dismissed with prejudice when the defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or 28 misconduct.

Page 1 of 4 DISCUSSION 2 Under Guam law, "unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be dismissed where a 3 defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Rasauo, 4 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. This rule applies "the statutory speedy trial time period delineated in 8 5 GCA § 80.60(a)(3)" to the prompt arraignment requirement delineated in 8 GCA § 60.10(a). !d. 6 Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of each 7 case. !d. at~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Under Guam law, cases that evaluate delay and good cause in the statutory speedy trial IO context are instructional for the purposes of prompt arraignment under 8 GCA § 60.1 0. People II v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 35. A speedy trial may be delayed by the following good causes: 1) I2 conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and I3 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; I4 Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. I5 In this case, Defendant was not arraigned after the complaint was filed on December 14, I6 2009. An initial delay was caused by the Court's calendar of the first appearance one hundred I7 and thirty five (135) days after the complaint was filed. Judicial delay in prompt arraignment is I8 attributed to the Government. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 at~ 22. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam I9 14 ~ 12, courts, judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the 20 constitutional guarantee to promptly dispose criminal charges. !d. (citing Strunk v. US., 412 2I U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is 22 not excused by one hundred and thirty five (135) days of judicial delay and the complaint shall 23 be dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 24 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 25 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 26 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.1 0( a) and Rasauo, 2011 27 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 28 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or

Page 2 of 4 without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order to more 2 consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See !d. at ~ 21 (an 3 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 4 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 5 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length ofthe delay; 6 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 7 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 8 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 9 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 10 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of II federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 12 defendant from the delay. See US. v. Perez, Crim. No. 09-00025, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (D. 13 Guam Jun. 8, 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); US. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 14 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and US. v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 15 In this case, Defendant was not arraigned after the complaint was filed more than three I6 years ago. The length of this delay may give rise to a presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 I7 Guam 22 at ~ 49. The delay was caused, in part, by the failure to schedule a prompt first I8 appearance and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the Government. Julian 2012 I9 Guam 26 at ~ 22. Another possible cause for the delay may have been an inability to locate and 20 serve Defendant, but the record is devoid of the information necessary to determine whether this 2I delay was deliberate, negligent or justified, and the responsibility for the delay does not weigh 22 in favor of either party. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 at~~ 45-46. Most importantly, the complaint 23 caused no oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety or concern before Defendant appeared in 24 2012, and there is no allegation of actual prejudice in this matter. !d. at ~~ 49-56. These 25 circumstances weigh against a constitutional violation and against Defendant's request for 26 dismissal with prejudice. 27 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the relatively less 28 serious misdemeanor offense charged, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the

Page 3 of 4 absence of clear Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by 2 Defendant. See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall

3 be dismissed without prejudice. 4 Ill

5 Ill

6 Ill 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and the 9 complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to promptly arraign Defendant pursuant IO to 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. II

12 SO ORDERED this /Cf-r>-1 day of June, 2013. 13

16 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 17

Page 4 of 4