People v. Santos

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0433-10 ) 3 ) 4 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) RE: MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 5 OSCAR JUNIOR SANTOS, ) PREJUDICE ) 6 Defendant. ) 7 )

9 INTRODUCTION

10 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on July 1, 2013 on the

11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, which was filed on January 13, 2012. Assistant 12 Attorney General Lisa Hack represented the People of Guam (the "People"). Defendant Oscar 13 Junior Santos ("Santos") was represented by Attorney Peter J. Sablan. This Court, having 14 considered the Motion and the arguments presented during the hearing of this matter, issues the 15

16 following written Decision and Order GRANTING the Motion to Dismiss. The Complaint

17 against Santos is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On May 14, 2010, the Government charged Santos with 1) Assault (as a Misdemeanor) 20 and 2) Child Abuse (as a Misdemeanor). See Complaint, CM0433-10 (5/14110). Santos was 21 originally scheduled to be arraigned on August 4, 2010, but the arraignment was continued until 22

23 September 29, 2010 due to lack of service of process. Santos, however, appeared at the

24 September 29, 2010 arraignment. 25

28 Decision and Order Case No. CM0433-10

On January 13, 2012, Santos filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, arguing that he was 2 1 denied a prompt arraignment pursuant to the 60-day rule under Rasauo 1/. Specifically, Santos 3 argues that he was arraigned on September 29, 2010, more than one hundred and thirty eight 4 (138) days after the Complaint was filed. The People argue that the Motion should be denied 5

6 because good cause exists for the delay. More specifically, the August 4, 2010 arraignment

7 hearing had to be rescheduled to September 29, 2010 because Santos could not be located for 8 service of process prior to the August 4, 2010 hearing date. 9 DISCUSSION 10 According to 8 G.C.A. § 60.1 O(a), "[t]he defendant shall be arraigned promptly after the II

12 indictment .... " If the defendant is not promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the filing of

13 the complaint (or indictment), the complaint shall be dismissed unless good cause is shown for 14 the delay. See People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 14 ("Rasauo If'). 15 In this case, it is clear that Santos was not arraigned within the sixty (60) day time 16

17 requirement and the People have failed to establish good cause for the delay. Santos's first

18 arraignment hearing was scheduled on August 4, 2010, well beyond the 60-day time limit. The 19 fact that he did not appear at the August 4, 2010 hearing is irrelevant. 20 Further, the People failed to establish that good cause exists for the delay. In determining 21 what constitutes "good cause," the Guam Supreme Court looks to the "good cause" standard 22

23 under 8 G.C.A. § 80.60(b)(3) for guidance. See People v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ~ 21; see, e.g.,

24 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40 (good cause was met where delay was caused by 25 defendant's conduct and delay benefitted defendant). As stated above, the fact that the August 4, 26 2010 arraignment had to be rescheduled until September 29, 2010 is irrelevant. It is also 27

28 1 See People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 141!14 ("Rasauo If').

-2- Decision and Order Case No. CM0433-l 0

irrelevant if that delay was caused by Santos, and nothing on the record suggests he in fact 2 caused the delay. What is relevant is that the earliest date Santos was scheduled to be arraigned 3 in this case was August 4, 2010. That hearing date, however, was well beyond the 60-day time 4 limitation. Because no good cause exists for the delay, Santos's Motion is granted. In the 5

6 interest of justice, however, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

7 Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy because the delay was not caused 8 by the People, but by the Court when it scheduled the arraignment beyond the 60-day time 9 limitation. When the Court scheduled Santos's arraignment hearing for August 4, 2010, the 60- 10 day limitation period under Rasauo II was not in effect. The Guam Supreme Court issued the II

12 Rasauo II decision in 2011 and then later ruled in Julian, 2012 Guam 26, that the 60-day rule

13 applies retroactively. Under these circumstances, dismissal with prejudice would be too harsh of 14 a result. 15 CONCLUSION 16

17 For the reasons stated above, Santos's Motion to Dismiss 1s GRANTED and the

18 Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 19

21 It is SO ORDERED this 5th d~L.I~::::::·~::::...!.._::=====~----- 22 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON 23 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24

-3-