People v. Scharff II
This text of People v. Scharff II (People v. Scharff II) 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
Uuv UtrM,c/1 IN THE SUPERIOR CO RT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0033-10 3 ) vs. ) 4 ) ) 5 CHARLES E. SCHARFF II, ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 ROSEMARIE EVANGELISTA, ) JOAQUIN MAFNAS PANGELINAN, JR., ) 7 IGNACIO SANTOS PALACIOS, ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 ____________________________) 10 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on November 20, 11 2012. Attorney Jesse J.N. Nasis appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorney F. Randall 12 Cunliffe represented Defendant Joaquin Mafnas Pangelinan, Jr., who was present. Attorney 13 John C. Terlaje represented Ignacio Santos Palacios, who was present. Attorney Darleen E. 14 Hiton represented Charles E. Scharff II. Julie R. Rosete represented Rosemarie Evangelista, 15 who was present. Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented and the record, the 16 Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 17 BACKGROUND 18 The Defendants are charged with Twelve Counts of theft by receiving. On August 29, 19 2012, the Court filed its Decision and Order denying the Motion to Dismiss requested by 20 Defendant Joaquin Mafnas Pangelinan Jr. and joined by the remaining Defendants. Defendant 21 Pangelinan now requests reconsideration ofthe August 29, 2012 Decision and Order. All other 22 Defendants have joined in the motion. 23 DISCUSSION 24 The Defendants move this Court to reconsider its August 29, 2012 Decision and Order 25 based on the premise that the Court erred in finding Counts Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven and 26 Twelve were not outside the statute of limitations. Defendants support their contention by 27 arguing that Counts Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve of the Superseding Indictment 28 were based on new evidence and therefore the relation back theory does not apply.
People v. Scharff II., et at., Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0033-I 0 -Page I of 4- In opposition, the Government contends that Counts Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven and
2 Twelve of the Superseding Indictment do not broaden the scope of the Original Indictment and 3 relate back to the file date of the Original Indictment. The Government argues that the 4 additional charges in the Superseding Indictment do not rely on entirely different evidence and 5 do not expose the Defendants to a significantly greater sentence. 6 Standard of Reconsideration 7 Generally, there are several grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be 8 granted. These include situations where the trial court: 1) is presented with new evidence; 2) 9 committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening IO change in controlling law." Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ,-r 10 (April 2, 1998) (citations II omitted). I2 In addition, "no motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written 13 argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion". CVR 7.1 (i). 1 Thus, the I4 Court will only decide the issue of whether or not grounds for reconsideration exist. This Court I5 will not decide on the merits of the case once again. Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which I6 states in relevant part: I7 "(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms I8 as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal 19 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 20 neglect...( 6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." GRCP 60. 2I
22 In the briefs submitted to the Court, the Government and the Defendants reargue the
23 merits of the original Motion to Dismiss. Yet, the Court already addressed a majority of those
24 arguments in its Decision and Order resolving the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will not
25 readdress arguments already decided on and will only determine whether or not grounds for
26 reconsideration exist. The only grounds mentioned by Defendant Pangelinan in his
27 1 28 Where no criminal procedure rule exists, the Court may apply a relevant civil procedure statute or rule.
People v. Scharff/!., et al., Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0033-IO -Page 2 of4- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration filed October 17,2012 is Court 2 error. There is no new evidence or a change in controlling law that could be argued to warrant 3 reconsideration, so, the Court will only address whether or not reconsideration is appropriate 4 based on clear Court error or manifest injustice. 5 Here, the Court does not find that the new counts, whether it was four or six of them, in 6 the Superseding Indictment are based on such different evidence that the Defendants would be 7 surprised by the added counts and unable to prepare a defense. All charges in both indictments 8 allegedly occurred during the same time frame of August 1, 2007 to September 7, 2007. During 9 that time frame of a little longer than a month, the Defendants allegedly participated in a string 10 of car thefts and related activities. The Court does not expect that any of the Defendants became 11 surprised that the police and investigators discovered additional victims after the first indictment 12 was filed. While, the Court does acknowledge that Defendant Pangelinan is correct that six, not 13 four, of the counts in the Superseding Indictment rely on new evidence, the Court does not 14 believe that those facts imply clear Court error or manifest injustice. 15 In its earlier Decision and Order, the Court considered the issue that the new charges 16 relied on new victims and unique evidence. The Court will not now, decide in an inconsistent 17 way. The Court concludes that the time frame and rash like appearance of the alleged string of 18 thefts provides ample room for a decision that the new charges did not broaden the scope of the 19 indictment. Unlike the charges that were removed in the Court's earlier decision, the additional 20 counts do not add or change elements of the offense. Thus, the Court did not make clear error 21 or subject the Defendant to a manifestly unjust decision when finding that all 12 Counts in the 22 Superseding Indictment relate back to the file date of the Original Indictment. 23 There is one final issue to analyze. Whether the new counts subject the Defendants to a 24 greater sentence? Defendant Pangelinan argues that he is exposed to a greater sentence with the 25 presence of the new counts. The Government claims that because the crime is the exact same 26 charge and under the same criminal statute as the previous counts there can be no argument that 27 the sentence will be greater. 28 The Court does not believe that an added count maintaining the exact same potential
People v. Scharff II., et al., Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0033-10 -Page 3 of 4- 1 sentence range could be considered a greater sentence. The Court understands that there could
2 be a greater sentence where a consecutive sentence is applied to multiple counts. Yet, the Court 3 also understands that where there is a concurrent sentence, the new counts would in fact not
4 expose the Defendants to a greater sentence. The Court will not conclude that adding counts, 5 after an initial complaint is filed, exposes a defendant to a greater sentence because of the 6 potential for a consecutive sentence. Here, Counts Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve 7 of the Superseding Indictment subject the Defendant to the same sentence range as the original 8 counts of theft by receiving. The Court finds that the Defendants will not be exposed to a
9 greater sentence by the addition of Counts Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve in the 10 Superseding Indictment. Thus, there was no clear error by this Court and reconsideration of the
11 August 29,2012 Decision and Order is unwarranted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Scharff II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scharff-ii-superctguam-2013.