People v. Santos

Opinion

ry

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3

4 ) PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CASE NO. CF0047-13 5 ) 6 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ) 8 JAY DIAZ SANTOS, ) ) 9 Defendant. ) 10

II INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on 13 September 11, 2013 on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider. Assistant Attorney 14 General James Collins represented the People of Guam. Defendant Jay Diaz 15 Santos was represented by Attorney Howard Trapp. Having considered the 16 arguments and the applicable law, this Court now issues its Decision and Order. 11 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 On July 9, 2013, this Court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence 19 obtained from a search of his home. On July 17, 2013, Defendant filed his Motion to

2o Reconsider. In it, he echoes the arguments made in support of the motion to

21 suppress and states the Court did not consider his third argument: that there was

22 no probable cause supporting the warrant. Defendant asks that this Court reconsider and vacate its July 9, 2013 Decision and Order. 23 On July 23, 2013, the People filed their Opposition to the motion, argumg 24 that reconsideration on the Court's part pursuant to Local Rule CVR 7.1 is not 25 appropriate here. On July 24, 2013, Defendant filed his Reply, stating 26 reconsideration is appropriate under CVR 7.1(i)(3). For the reasons set forth below, 27 this Court shall deny the motion. 28 Decision and Order Case No. CF0047-l3

DISCUSSION 2 A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only 3 on the grounds of: 4 (1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 5 could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration 6 at the time of such decision, or,

7 (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or, 8

9 (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. 10 No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written II argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. CVR 7.1(i). 12 Here, Defendant argues that 7.1(i)(3) is applicable. 13 Defendant's basis for reconsideration is that "Section IIP was entirely 14 overlooked." Motion for Reconsideration ~ 8. Section III essentially states there 15 was no probable cause for the search of Defendant's house. The record before this 16 Court shows otherwise. 17 The determination as to probable cause has already been made by another 18 Superior Court Judge. Before police proceeded to search Defendant's home, they 19 sought out and obtained a warrant. Thus, this Court issued its July 9, 2013 20 Decision and Order relying on the same information used to obtain the warrant and 21 the finding of probable cause. 22 It is not for this Court to review a finding of probable cause by another trial 23 court after that Court's issuance of a warrant. While this Court is aware of Franks 24 Hearings2 in federal practice, there has been no authority provided to this Court 25

26 1 Section III of Defendant's Reply. For unknown reasons, the factual and legal

27 bases for the original Motion to Suppress were found in Defendant's Reply to the People's Opposition to the Motion, rather than with the motion at the outset. 28 2 An evidentiary hearing conducted by a District Court to determine whether a magistrate's issuance of a warrant was supported by probable cause when

-2- Decision and Order Case No. CF0047-13

that such a procedure is adopted under Guam law, nor that it is even applicable 2 under the circumstances found here. This Court is disinclined to become an 3 appellate court for a review of the issuing Superior Court Judge's finding of 4 probable cause. 5 The warrant issued by the other Court was properly considered by this Court.

6 Defendant's Section III argument was defeated ab initio. There being no failure to

7 consider material facts by this Court as provided for in CVR 7.l(i)(3),

8 reconsideration is not proper here.

9 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to Suppress is hereby 10 DENIED. A Criminal Trial Setting is set for December 31, 2013 at 2:00p.m. II

27 Defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was 28 included in the warrant affidavit and the falsehood was necessary to the finding of probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

-3-