People v. Simion

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) aL,Ai ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CMI069-11 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER SAICHY SINGKIO SIMION, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7

9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to 11 dismiss, filed September 17, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on October 1, 2012. Assistant 12 Attorney General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant 13 Public Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having considered the 14 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following

15 Decision and Order. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On October 21, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge Defendant with 18 driving under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor. On November 23, 2011, the Court 19 entered a summons for Defendant to appear and answer on January 4, 2012. Thereafter, 20 Defendant was appointed counsel on January 4, 2012, released on a personal recognizance bond 21 of$l,OOO on January 5, 2012, and arraigned on January 25,2012. 22 On September 17, 2012, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss alleging he was 23 not promptly arraigned within sixty (60) days of the complaint pursuant to People v. Rasauo, 24 2011 Guam 14. Defendant argues the delay is not excusable for good cause and that the 25 complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The Government argues that judicial delay 26 constitutes good cause to excuse the untimely arraignment and that the complaint can only be 27 dismissed with prejudice when the Defendant suffers from actual prejudice, bad faith or

28 misconduct.

Page 1 of4 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 § 60.1O(a). 6 Id. Good cause to delay a prompt arraignment is determined by the specific circumstances of 7 each case. Id. at ~ 14. 8 1. Good Cause to Delay Prompt Arraignment 9 Guam law does not describe the specific circumstances that constitute good cause to 10 delay a prompt arraignment. In People v. Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32, the Supreme Court II explained that "the prompt arraignment requirement of 8 GCA § 60.1 O(a) is a statutory 12 expression of the speedy trial right." The Guam Supreme Court also holds that speedy trial may 13 be delayed by the following good causes: 1) conduct of the defendant; 2) delay that benefits the 14 defendant; 3) unforeseen circumstances; and 4) prompt disposition of pretrial motions. See e.g. 15 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 40; Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ~ 11; Quinata 16 v. Superior Court, 2010 Guam 8 ~ 36. 17 In this case, Defendant was arraigned on January 25, 2012, more than 60 days after the 18 complaint was filed on October 21,2011. The majority of the delay appears to be the Court's 19 order for the Defendant to appear seventy-five (75) days after the complaint was filed. The 20 Government contends that this delay is excusable for good cause because it is not attributable to 21 prosecutorial delay. The Court does not agree. Pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 12, courts, 22 judicial officers and prosecuting attorneys all share the duty and the constitutional guarantee to 23 promptly dispose criminal charges. ld. (citing Strunk v. u.s., 412 U.S. 434, 439, n. 2 (1973) 24 and 8 GCA § 80.50(a)). For this reason, the untimely arraignment is not excused by 75 days of 25 judicial delay and the complaint shall be dismissed pursuant to Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 26 2. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice 27 Guam law does not specify whether dismissal with prejudice or dismissal without 28 prejudice is the appropriate remedy for a violation of 8 GCA § 60.1 O( a) and of Rasauo, 2011

Page 2 of 4 Guam 14. The prompt arraignment requirement is an expression of the speedy trial right. 2 Stephen, 2009 Guam 8 ~ 32. Absent clear guidance to dismiss an untimely arraignment with or 3 either without prejudice, the Court shall consider the established speedy trial analyses in order 4 to more consistently weigh the circumstances of an untimely arraignment. See Id. at ~ 21 (an 5 established rule or forewarning may be required to dismiss with prejudice). 6 Under Guam law, the Court must consider the following relevant factors to determine 7 whether a delay violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: 1) the length of the delay; 8 2) the reason for the delay; and 3) the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. 9 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~~ 41-42 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)). 10 When federal time limits to begin trial are violated, the following factors determine whether to 11 dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice: 1) the seriousness of the offense; 2) the facts 12 and circumstances that led to dismissal; 3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of 13 federal time limits and the administration of justice; and 4) the prejudice suffered by the 14 defendant from the delay. See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); 15 Us. v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326,336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1998); and Us. v. 16 Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)). 17 In this case, the Defendant was arraigned on January 25,2012, ninety-six (96) days after 18 the complaint was filed on October 21, 2011. The length of this delay may not give rise to a 19 presumption of prejudice. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 44. The parties agree that the delay was 20 caused by judicial calendaring and the responsibility for this delay weighs against the 21 Government. Id. at ~~ 45-46. The Defendant was incarcerated during the delay, but he does not 22 allege any actual prejudice or specific impact upon his health, affairs or legal defenses and the 23 Court cannot find that prejudice resulted from the delayed arraignment. Id. at ~~ 49-56. These 24 circumstances weigh against the finding of a constitutional violation and against the legitimacy 25 of Defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice. 26 Furthermore, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted in light of the relatively less 27 serious misdemeanor offense, the aforementioned slight impact of the delay, the absence of 28 clear Government neglect, and the aforementioned absence of prejudice suffered by the

Page 3 of 4 Defendant. See Perez, 2011 WL 2294194, at *3-8. For all of these reasons, the complaint shall 2 be dismissed without prejudice. 3 III 4 III 5 III 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and 8 the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to promptly arraign Defendant 9 pursuant to 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14. 10

11 SO ORDERED this d3fC.2 day of November, 2012. 12

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

24 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 25 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the c.1f/J box of: 26 /1q \ FD,Sv 27 Datell-d=') Time:~ 28 G;k Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam

Page 4 of 4