People v. Suzuki

Superior Court of Guam·Decided February 24, 2012·No. CM1046-10·Unknown

Opinion

L1IM t~ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM LulZ F;:~) ') 11 ~J L'i t~l '" n. L' 6 V' ;

2 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM1046-10 ) 3 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 4 ) (Motion to Dismiss) SAM SUZUKI, ) 5 ) 6 Defendant. )

8 The matter came before the HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON on 9 December 22, 2011 for Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (hereinafter referred to as "Motion").

10 Defendant was not present, but was represented by Attorney Suresh Sampath. People were II represented by Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins. The Court having considered all 12 the oral arguments, briefs, and materials filed herein now renders the following decision. 13 Guam's Supreme Court held 1: "that unless good cause is shown, a complaint shall be 14 dismissed where a defendant is not promptly arraigned within 60 days of the filing of the IS complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~ 16. Defendant argues that pursuant to People v. 16 Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 (hereinafter referred to as Rasauo 11'), this case should be dismissed 17 with prejudice because Defendant was not arraigned within sixty (60) days after the Complaint 18 was filed. See also 8 GCA § 60.10. People argue that the Court should find good cause exists for 19 the delay, and therefore, the dismissal would be inappropriate. As required by Rasauo II, this 20 Court will review the specific facts in this case to determine whether or not there was good 21 cause for the delay in arraigning Defendant beyond the sixty (60) days after the Complaint was

22 filed. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 ~~ 10, 14. 23 Defendant was arrested on December 5,2009 and given a notice to appear (''NTA'') with

24 a date of December 8, 2010. On November 26,2010, the Complaint was fIled, but no summons 25 was issued 2 . Id. at ~ 7. Defendant did not appear on December 8, 2010. A Summons was issued

27 1 This holding is hereinafter referred to as the "60 day rule." 2 Unlike the facts in Rasauo II, the Court notes that a summons is now required to automatically be issued on all 28 misdemeanors, upon a filed complaint and affidavit, even when the People do not request for a summons, after a probable cause determination is made. 8 GCA § 15.20(a). Also, currently, all persons arrested for DUI charge are

lof4 on December 29, 2010 with an arraignment scheduled for January 12, 2011. On January 12, 2 2011, Magistrate Court recommended a bench warrant be issued, due to the Defendant not 3 appearing at the noticed hearing. A Bench Warrant was issued on January 24, 2011 and served 4 on the Defendant on August 3, 2011. This Court appointed Defendant representation on August 5 3, 2011, and set the arraignment for August 10, 2011. Defendant was arraigned after two 6 hundred fifty-seven (257) days had passed from the filing of the Complaint. 7 The time between the Complaint and the first appearance on August 8, 2011 does violate 8 the 60 day rule announced in Rasauo II. The Court notes that the People concede that there is no 9 good cause for the delay between the filing of the Complaint and the NTA date fifteen (15) days 10 later. This amount of delay does not violate the 60 day rule announced in Rasauo II. The Court 11 will review what days, if any, after January 25, 2011 constitutes good cause or if this case must 12 be dismissed for the 60 day rule violation. 13 First, the Court fmds that the any delay caused by a defendant's failure to appear at an 14 arraignment that has been properly noticed 3 is good cause. Therefore, the delay of arraignment 15 from December 16, 2010 to August 3, 2011 caused by Defendant's failure to appear is good 16 cause for purposes of the 60 day rule. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,-r 32 (citing People v. 17 Johnson, 606 P.2d 738, 746 (Ca1.l980)). 18 Next, the Court must determine if the time the Court allows a defendant to meet and 19 confer with counsel prior to being arraigned is reasonable and constitutes good cause. Title 8 20 Guam Code Annotated section 45.30(c) provides that the Court shall allow reasonable time to a 21 defendant to meet and confer with counsel prior to being arraigned. Meeting with and 22 discussing this with counsel allows a defendant to understand the significance of the 23 arraignment process as well as the defendant's rights, which are asserted or waived at 24 arraignment. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961). It is critical for a defendant to have this 25

26 brought before a magistrate for a probable cause determination prior to being released; therefore a NTA is not 27 issued. 3 Proper notice includes any of the following circumstances: (i) notice provided by a properly served summons, (ii) 28 notice to appear is provided to a defendant at time of release from confinement, or (iii) notification that occurs when a defendant is present and hears the court determine the date and time of the continued arraignment.

20f4 understanding at time of arraignment. See e.g. Huston v. Com., 171 S.W.3d 743, 744-45 (Ky. Ct.

2 App. 2005). Further, the concerns of Guam's Supreme Court in People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 3 1, are not present when a defendant is appointed counsel and the delay between the Complaint

4 and the arraignment is partially attributed to the time necessary for a defendant to meet and

5 confer with his appointed attorney. 2011 Guam 1 ,-r 53(quoted by Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14,-r 10). 6 In this case, Defendant's Motion did not address if any delay attributed to time for the 4 7 Defendant to meet and confer with counsel is good cause . Instead, Defendant's Motion argues 8 that no good cause exists for the violation of the 60 day rule in this case. On the other hand, the 9 Office of the Attorney General has argued that any delay of arraignment occasioned by a 10 continuance granted by the magistrate court should be excused for good cause. The Court 11 disagrees that a bright line rule of any delay caused by a court's calendaring of a criminal matter 12 is automatically good cause under the 60 day rule. Guam's Supreme Court makes it clear that it 13 intended the court and its officers to be subject to the prompt arraignment rule put forth in 14 Rasauo J1. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14,-r 12; 8 GCA § 80.50(a)("It shall be the duty of all courts and 15 judicial officers ... to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the 16 ends of justice"). See also People v. Ilemelong, CF150-1 0 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 13,2012). 17 Further, the Court rejects the contention that any length of delays caused by the time 18 provided to a defendant to meet and confer with an attorney is automatically good cause. The 19 Court finds that a reasonable amount of delay attributed to the time a defendant needs to meet 20 and confer with an attorney is good cause for purposes of the 60 day rule. Cf Flores, 2009

21 Guam 22,-r 38. 22 The Court finds that seven (7) days is a reasonable amount of time for a court to provide

23 a defendant to meet and confer with his attorney prior to being arraigned. 8 GCA § 80.50(a). 24 Since the delay in this case relating to time allotted for Defendant to meet and confer with his

25 attorney is reasonable and constitutes good cause, this case is not dismissed for the violation of

26 the 60 day rule.

28 4 This issue was raised orally by other Defense attorneys and Defendant orally joined, but this argument is not raised in the written Motion.

30f4 There are two hundred fifty-seven (257) days between the filing of the Complaint and 2 Defendant's arraignment.

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