People v. Sicat

Superior Court of Guam·Decided March 14, 2025·No. CF0487-20·Unknown

Opinion

Q - * ...* L 5

s'*!* pr .**a ZU iimiaa

flu! ¢-»

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE CASE n o CF0487-20 NO. CF0487-20 Plaintiff,

vs.

DECISION AND ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO EDWARD EDWARD ACE ACE SICAT SICAT aka KIM, aka KIM, STAND TRIAL TRIAL DOB: 9/06/1992 DOB: 9/06/1992 Defendant.

This matter came before matter came before the the Honorable Honorable Dana Dana A. A. Gutierrez Gutierrez on December 2, 2024 2024 for aa

continued Competency Hearing for Defendant Edward Ace Ace Sic at ("Sicat"). Sicat ("Sic at"). Present Present at at the the hearing

was Sicat atwith withhis hiscounsel, counsel,Attorney AttorneyMichael Michael F. F. Phillips, Phillips, and Assistant AssistantAttorney Attorney General Christine

S. Tenorio on on behalf of the People of of Guam ("Peop1e").11 Guam ("People").

Upon Upon review reviewof ofthe theevidence, evidence,the thearguments arguments of ofcounsel, counsel, and and applicable law, law, the the Court finds

that Sicat atisiscompetent competentto to be be proceeded proceeded against against at trial.

BACKGROUND

This case This case has been before before the the Court Court since sinceSeptember September2020, 2020, and and numerous numerous trial dates have

been scheduled andvacated. scheduled and vacated.See SeeDecision Decisionand and Order OrderRe: Re: Motion Motion to Continue Continue at 1-5 1-5 (July 20, 20,

2023). On October 4, 4, 2023, 2023, Sicat's Sicat's counsel counselfiled filed a Motion Motion in Limine for for Hearing Hearing on on Defendant's Defendant's

Competency Competency to be Proceeded Proceeded Against, Against, which which raised raised Sicat's Sicat's apparent "inability to meaningfully apparent "inability meaningfully

11 Also Also present was Public Defender Defender Stephen Stephen P. P. Hattori Hattori on on behalf behalfof ofSic Sicat and Tagalog interpreter, Brianyx Crisologo. DECISION AND ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL CF0487-20; People People of ofGuam Guamv.v. Edward EdwardAce AceSic Sicat

understand the understand the nature nature of the proceedings, proceedings, assist assist and cooperate with and cooperate with his counsel, counsel, follow follow the

participate in evidence, or participate in his defense." Id. Id. at 6, see also Decl. Deel. Michael F. Phillies Phillips at at 2 (Oct. (Oct. 4,

2023) ("The Defendant is completely unable to assist assist or cooperate with defense counsel. We are

not able to have a productive conversation with the Defendant about anything involving the facts facts

of his case or upcoming of upcoming trials.").

ordered Sic The Court ordered Sicat at to to undergo undergo aa forensic forensic evaluation, evaluation, and and for for the the examiner examiner to to provide

the following: following: (1) (1)an anopinion opinionasastotothe thedefendant's defendant's competency competencytotobe beproceeded proceeded against, against, together

with the reasons and basis for the the opinion, opinion, (2) an opinion as to (2) an to the the defendant's defendant's competency to be

sentenced, together with the reasons and basis for the opinion, and (3) an opinion as to whether

the defendant defendant lacked lacked substantial substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing, or or to know or

understand that his conduct was wrongful or or to control his his actions, actions, or or to the extent to which, as as a

consequence of consequence ofmental mental illness, illness, disease, disease, or or defect, defect, the defendant defendant did did or or did did not not have have aa state of mind

relevant to any issue relevant issue in in the the trial trial of ofaction. action. Order Orderfor forForensic ForensicEvaluation Evaluationatat2 2(Oct. 2023). 2 (Oct.5,5,2023).-2

November 7, On November 7, 2023, 2023, Dr. Dr. Juan Juan Rapadas, Rapadas, a Clinical Clinical Psychologist with the Judiciary Judiciary of of

Guam's Client Ser Guam's Services and Family vices and Family Counseling Counseling Division Division ("CSFC"), ("CSFC"), performed performed aa forensic forensic

on Sic evaluation on Sicat. at. Dr. Dr. Rapadas's Rapadas's written report ("Rapadas Report") concluded concluded that that Sic Sicat "does

mental disorder not have a severe mental disorder that would directly directly cause cause him him to to lack substantial mental capacity

to know or understand what he was doing, to know know or or understand that his conduct was wrongful,

control his actions, or to control actions, under any circumstances circumstances in his his past past and and present present behaviors." behaviors." Rapadas Rapadas

22 Separately, Separately, at at the the request request of of Sicat's Sicat's counsel, counsel, the the Court ordered that a Tagalog interpreter be present to assist Sicatatatatthe theforensic forensic evaluation. evaluation. Although Although this case has been pending pending for for several several years, years, Sic Sicat did not raise the issue of of his his English English proficiency proficiency until until fall fall of of2023. 2023. Sicat's Sicat'scounsel counselhas hasstated statedthat thatalthough althoughSicSicat can speak some English, he needs assistance assistance understanding legal terminology and concepts. The People have not objected objected to Sicat's Sicat's use use ofofan an interpreter. interpreter. See See Decision Decision and and Order Order Re: Re: Competency Competency Issues Issues and Second Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluationatat 33(July (July10, 10, 2024) 2024). 2 DECISION AND ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL CF0487-20; People People of ofGuam Guam v.v. Edward EdwardAce AceSic Sicat

Rapadas also concluded that Sic Report at 6. Rapadas Sicat at was was competent competent to to be proceeded against, against, as as he

possess the ability "seem[s] to possess ability to consult consult [with his attorney] attorney] with a good good degree degree of of rational rational

understanding" and understanding" and "seems "seems capable oftestifying capable of testifying appropriately." appropriately." Id. at at 5.

On March 14, 2024, the Court Court held held a Competency Hearing and received testimony Hom from

Dr. Rapadas. Rapadas. During During the the hearing, hearing, Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas conceded conceded that that he he did did not not review review Sicat's full medical medical

history prior to the forensic to or during the forensic evaluation. evaluation. Min. Entry Entry at at 2:54:01 2:54:01 PM PM (Mar. (Mar. 14, 14, 2024). 2024).

Specifically, he de Specifically, he dh did did not account account for whether Sicat's Sicat's mental mental conditions, conditions, and/or his use of and/or his of

Bromazepam, may render him "drowsy" Bromazepam, "drowsy" or or "frozen" "frozen" at at trial, trial, and and thus thus unable unable to assist assist in his

Decision and defense. See Decision and Order Order at at 9 (July 10, 2024).

Following the Following the competency competencyhearing, hearing, the the Court Court issued a Decision and Order Re: Re: Competency Competency

Second Forensic Issues and Second Forensic Evaluation Evaluationon onJuly July10, 10,2024. 2024. The TheCourt Courtruled ruledthat that Sic Sicat failed failed to to meet

his burden in providing providing evidence evidence that that he lacked lacked substantial substantial capacity capacity at at the the time of of the alleged alleged

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Sicat, (superctguam 2025).

People v. Sicat (People v. Sicat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Gene Boag v. Robert Raines
769 F.2d 1341 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
Robert P. Sheley v. Harry K. Singletary
955 F.2d 1434 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
David Leon Woods v. Daniel R. McBride Superintendent
430 F.3d 813 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Patterson
713 F.3d 1237 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)
State v. Lang
305 Neb. 726 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)
Petrena v. State
914 So. 2d 999 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)