FFILED
LE
l CLERK OF COURT
2 2825 NUM 2025 NOV 19 19PMPH
2: 2: M:>
·232.3 .0
3 SU DEPIQD c,'"H SU?E?<20R
, it.i
10- scum ·vvr\; ,, 1 O'"'
4 OF GUAM OF GUAM
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE
CASE NO.
no. CF0571-25-01
CF0571-25-01
9 CRIMINAL CASE CASE NO.
no. CF0571-25
CF0571-25
vs. vs.
10 DECISION AND ORDER
ORDER
II FRANCIS JEROME TAISACAN 12 BRYAN JOSEPH GUERRERO, 13 Defendants.
14
15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on October 29, 29, 2025, for hearing on
17 Defendant Francis Defendant Francis Jerome Jerome Taisacan's
Taisacan's ("Taisacan")
("Taisacan") Motion to Dismiss Dismiss for
for Double
Double Jeopardy
Jeopardy
18 Violation ("Motion ("Motion to Dismlss"),
Dismiss"), joined by Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Bryan
Bryan Joseph
Joseph Guerrero
Guerrero ("Guerrero").
19 Present were Assistant Assistant Attorney
Attorney General
General Dante
Dante CH
CH Harootunian
Harootunian on
on behalf
behalfof
of the People of
of Guam
20 20 ("the ("the Government"), Government"), Taisacan with counsel, counsel, Deputy
Deputy Public Defender John P. Morrison, Morrison, and
and
21 21 Guerrero counsel, Alternate Guerrero with counsel, Alternate Public Public Defender
Defender Ana
Ana Maria
Maria C.
C. Gayle. Having reviewed the
22 22 pleadings, the the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the the following Decision
23 23 and Order.
24 BACKGROUND
25 25 Taisacan Taisacan and Guerrero are each charged with (1) Assault Assault on a Peace Officer (As a Third
26 Degree Degree Felony);
Felony); (2) Felonious
Felonious Restraint
Restraint (As aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony);
Felony); and
and (3)
(3) Obstructing
Obstructing
27 27 Governmental Functions Functions (As
(As aa Misdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Aug. 22, 2025).
2025). These
These charges stem
28 28 from allegations allegations that
that the defendants assaulted Department of Corrections ("DOC") Officer Dari Darick
People v.
v. Taisacan & Guerrero
Taisacan &
Case No. CF0571-25-01 CF0571-25-0l && CF0571-25 CF057l-25
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 11 of Page of6 1 Santos while housed in Post 18 on or about August August 2,
2, 2025.
2025. (Decl. Lucks Wood, (Deel. of Lucas Wood, Magistrate's
2 Con pl., Aug.
Compl., Aug. 13, 2025). The 13, 2025). The defendants defendants were
were subsequently
subsequently severed
severed from
from each
each other
other for
for trial.
trial.
3 See Order After Hearing Granting Defendant Taisacan's Motion to Sever, Oct.
Oct. 1,
l, 2025.
4 August 28, On August 28, 2025, both defendants asserted asserted their
their right
right to a speedy trial.
5 On September September 26, 2025, Taisacan Taisacan filed
filed the
the instant
instant Motion.
Motion. On October l,
1, 2025, Guerrero
Gue1Tero
6 joined in the Motion.
7 On October 9, 2025, the the Government filed its Opposition.
8 On October 17, 2025, Taisacan 17, 2025, Taisacan filed
filed his
his Reply.
Reply. Guerrero joined in the Reply the same GueITero joined
9 day.11 day.
10 On October 29, 2025, the the Court heard
heard arguments
arguments on the Motion and subsequently placed
11 the matter under under advisement.
12 DISCUSSION
113 3 Defendants move the Defendants the Court Court to
to dismiss
dismiss this
this matter
matter because
because Defendant
Defendant was
was previously
previously
14 punished for the specific conduct alleged by the Discipline Hearing Board at the Department of of
15 15 Co1Tections ("DOC") and are therefore subject Corrections et to double jeopardy. See generally, generally, Taisacan Mot.
16 16 Dismiss, Sept. 26, 26, 2025. The Government
2025. The Governmentopposes, opposes,arguing
arguingthat
that the
the prior
prior disciplinary
disciplinary sanctions
17 17 were administrative imposed by DOC were administrative in in nature and do not
not constitute criminal punishment. See 18 generally, Opp'n, Oct.
generally, Opp'n, Oct. 9, 2025.
19 The Fifth Amendment provides that Amendment provides that no person person shall "be subject for the same offence to 20 be twice put in jeopardy of life life or limb."
limb." U.S.
U.S. Const.
Const. amend.
amend. V. "The double
V. "The double jeopardy
jeopardy clause
clause
21 States Constitution and the Organic under both the United States Organic Act Act prohibit
prohibit successive prosecutions 22 as well as successive successive punishment for the the same crime." People v.
v. Manila, Guam 66 ft1 11 Manila, 2005 Guam 11 23 23 (citations omitted). "The "The principles
principles of
ofdouble
double jeopardy
jeopardy apply
apply in
in criminal
criminal prosecutions
prosecutions and to the
24 24
25 l1 On October 22, 2025, the 22, 2025, theGovernment
Governmentalso alsofiled filed aa Reply
Reply to
to Defendant's
Defendant's Reply.
Reply. The
TheCourt
Courtnotes
notes that
that motion
motion
26 practice practice typically only contemplates contemplates the the filing filing of
ofthe
the motion,
motion, an
an opposition,
opposition, and
and a reply, unless leave of court unless leave court is grantedfor granted forany anyadditional
additional filings.See
filings. See Local
Local Rule
Rule CRl.l(b)(l), Local CRl.l(b)(l); also Asserted Criminal see also
7.1; see
CVR 7.1,
Rule CVR
Local Rule
27 Trial Scheduling Order, Sept.
Scheduling Order, Sept. 3, 2025 (setting forth briefing deadlines for motions, oppositions, 2025 (setting forth briefing deadlines for motions, oppositions, and and replies).
replies).
Nonetheless, Nonetheless, regardless of the responsive regardless of pleadings, the responsive pleadings, the Court Court still
still has
has an
an obligation
obligation to
to analyze the merits
merits of the
the
28 defendants' Motion. See defendants' Motion. See Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ,i,i Flores, 2004 W 27-28.
People v. Taisacan People v. Taisacan & & Guerrero
Case No. CF0571-25-01 CF0571-25-01 && CF0571-25 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 22of6
off
I 'rare'
'rare' case case in
in non-criminal
non-criminal proceedings
proceedings where
where the
the penalties
penalties imposed
imposed serve
serve aa punitive rather than 2 a remedial function."
function." Turner v. Johnson, 46 F. Supp. ad v. Johnson, 2d 655, 655,666 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
1999).
3 "It isis well well settled
settled that
thatprison
prisondisciplinary
disciplinary proceedings
proceedings do
do not
not constitute
constitute criminal
criminal
4 prosecutions."
prosecutions." Id Id.(citing
(citingWow fv. McDonnell, Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974)).
539,556 (1974)). "Prison disciplinary disciplinary
5 proceedings place in a closed, proceedings take place closed, tightly controlled controlled environment peopled peopled by those who have
6 chosen to violate the the criminal
criminal law
law and
and who
who have
have been
been lawfully
lawfullyincarcerated
incarceratedfor
fordoing
doingso."
so." Id.
Id at
7 660 (quoting Wo Wolff, 418 U.S. at
at 561.
561. "The
"The prison
prison disciplinary
disciplinary process
process determines
determines whether an
8 inmate has violated the conditions of of his incarceration, and and it is designed to advance the important 9 remedial goal of maintaining institutional order and security.
security. Criminal
Criminal prosecutions,
prosecutions, on
on the other
10 10 hand, are designed to punish those who violate the state's state's criminal
criminal laws." People v. Jones, Jones, 703
11 N.E.2d 994, 996 (Ill.
(Ill. App.
App. 1998)
1998) (citation
(citation omitted).
omitted). See
See also
also Russo v.
v. New Jersey
Jersey Dept.
Dept. of
of
12 12 Corrections, 183 (N.J. App. Div. 1999)
Corrections, 737 A.2d 183 1999) (quoting (quoting United States v. Whitney, Whitney, 649 F.2d
13 13 296, 297 (5th Cir.
Cir. l981))
1981)) ("A
("A criminal
criminal prosecution
prosecution is
is aa judicial
judicial proceeding
proceeding that
that vindicates
vindicates the
14 14 community's interests community's interests in in punishing
punishing criminal
criminal conduct.").
15 The incident incident at DOC that forms the basis for for the charges in the instant instant matter
matter occurred on
16 or about August 2, 2, 2025.
2025. A
A few
few days
days later,
later, on
on August
August 6,
6, 2025,
2025, the DOC Disciplinary Hearing 17 17 Board ("DHB") held held aa hearing
hearing where
where both
both defendants
defendants answered
answered to charges of
of Interfering with a
18 18 Performance of Duties, Assault Without Injury, and Interfering Staff Member in the Performance Interfering with the 19 19 Count. 2 Guerrero Taking of Count.2 denied any Guerrero denied any involvement in the incident.
involvement in incident. Taisacan Taisacan entered
entered a no-
20 contest plea and contest plea stated that and stated that the
the incident
incident was
was horseplay. The DHB
horseplay. The DHB ruled
ruled that
that the
the defendants
defendants
21 committed committed the offenses offenses charged
charged and ordered disciplinary segregation ordered disciplinary segregation for for 320
320 days,
days, with the
22 suspension of all privileges. Taisacan Taisacan isis now
now housed
housed in
in Post
Post 55 and
and is in a "lock-down" status status for
23 twenty-three hours of the day and is not allowed to receive any incoming, with the exception of 24 24 hygiene products. 3 hygiene products.3 25 25
26 2 The Court adopts these facts facts from
from Defendant Taisacan's Taisacan's Motion to Dismiss. See SeeMot.
Mot.Dismiss
Dismissatat2-3
2-3.
27 3 Defendant Guerrero does Defendant Guerrero set forth not set
does not forth any any specific
specific facts
facts relative
relative to
to his
his suspension
suspension of of privileges privileges ininhishisJoinder.
Joiner.
28 Guerrero's Joindersimply Guerrero's Joiner simplystates statesthat
thathehe"incorporates
"incorporatesand
andadopts
adoptsbybyits
itsreference,
reference, as
as ififmore
more fully
fully set
set forth
forth herein,
herein,
People v. People Taisacan & v. Taisacan & Guerrero
Case No.
No. CF0571-25-01
CF0571-25-01 && CF0571-25 cF0571-25
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of6
of
1 Defendants first argue that because the conduct alleged in the instant matter is the same
2 conduct adjudicated adjudicated and punished by by the DHB, they cannot be placed in jeopardy and punished
3 again pursuant to People v. Manila, Manila, 2005 Guam 6. (Taisacan (Taisacan Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 3-5).
3-5). In Manila,
Manila,
4 the Supreme Court of Guam determined that because
5 fundamental jurisdiction the revocation court had fundamental jurisdiction in the revocation proceeding and generally over
over the offense of DUI, Manila was placed in jeopardy jeopardy in being
being punished
6 and serving his punishment for the second DUI offense. Because the DUI and DUI 7 (B.A.C.) offenses charged in the underlying proceeding are the same offenses as (B.A.C.) offenses
8 the DUI offense for which Manila was punished punished during the revocation proceeding, he cannot be fLlrther prosecuted for further prosecuted for those those DUI
DUI offenses.
offenses.
9 2005 Guam 6 ,i1]36 36(citation
(citationomitted).
omitted). The
The revocation
revocation court
court explicitly
explicitly stated that
that it was
was punishing
10 10 the defendant for the offenses committed while he was on probation probation and charged in aa separate separate
II criminal case.
case. Id ,i
Id. atat1117. The
The Supreme
Supreme Court
Court held:
12 12 1.30(a), that
consistent with section l.30(a), that where where aa defendant
defendant is punished
punished or sentenced in
13 a proceeding over which the trial court lacked jurisdiction jurisdiction over
over the defendant
defendant or the
14 14 offense, later prosecution offense, later prosecution forfor the the offense
offense is
is not barred by the
the double
double jeopardy
jeopardy
clause. Conversely, ifif the defendant is punished or sentenced in a proceeding over 15 the court
which the court possessed possessed fundamental
fundamental jurisdiction, jurisdiction, later prosecution prosecution for the
the
16 16 offense is prohibited under the double jeopardy jeopardy clause.
117 7 Id.
Id. at at 1127.4
,i 4
18 1 Here, the the DHB
DHB is not a court
court of
of law. is tasked law. The DHB is tasked with maintaining prison safety,
19 19 order, order, and discipline.
discipline. Its proceedings are not proceedings are not criminal criminal in
in nature.
nature. DOC's
DOC's disciplinary
disciplinary rules
rules
as
20 to protect the public, inmates, and staff members, "serve[] to members, and maintain[]
maintain[] order in the facility."
21
22 the arguments arguments andandauthorities authoritiescontained
containedininCo-Defendant Co-DefendantTaisacan's
Taisacan's Motion to
to be
be adduced
adduced at
at aa hearing
hearing hereon.
hereon." as
(Joiner (JoinderininMot.
Mot.Dismiss,
Dismiss, Oct.
Oct. 1,
1, 2025).
2025).
23 23 4 4 As Asset set forth in Manila:
24 24 The jurisdictional
jurisdictional exception to thethe double double jeopardy rule
rule has been codified in in Guam Guam at at least
least with
25 regard to multiple regard to multiple prosecutions.
prosecutions.Title
Title 9 GCA §§1.30
9 GCA 1.30 provides:
provides: AAprosecution
prosecution isis notnot aa bar bar within
within the
the
meaning meaning of §§ 1.24,
of§§ 1.24,1.26
1.26and
and 1.28
1.28 under
under ... the following
following circumstances:
circumstances: (a) The The former former prosecution
prosecution
26 was before aa court court which lacked
lacked jurisdiction over
over the
the defendant
defendant or the offense tried tried in in that
that court.
court.
The comment The comment to to Title
Title 99GCA
GCA§ §1.30
1.30further
furtherexplains
explainsthat there isis no thatthere bar to no bar to prosecution
prosecution where where the the
27 court before which
which the prior proceeding was held lacks jurisdiction jurisdiction over
over the defendant or or the theoffense.
offense.
28 2005 Guam Guam 61]27
,i 27 (internal
(internal citations
citationsand
andquotation
quotationmarks
marks omitted)
omitted).
People v. Taisacan & v. Taisacan & Guerrero
Case No. CF0571-25-01 CF0571-25-0l && CF0571-25 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of6
l (Executive (Executive Order No. 94-19 94-19 (Approval
(Approval of
ofthe
the Rules
Rules and
and Regulations
Regulations of
of the
the Department
Department of
7 2 Corrections), Corrections), Dec.
Dec. 30,
30, 1994).
1994 The
The trial
trial court
court does not have
havejurisdiction
jurisdictionover
over the
theDHB.
DHB. The double
3 3 jeopardy clause jeopardy clause "protects "protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments against the for the punishments for
4 same same offense, and and then only when
when such occurs in successive such occurs proceedings." Hudson successive proceedings." v. United Hudson v. United
5 States, States, 522 U.S. 93, 522 U.S. 93, 99
99((l997)
1997) (internal
(internal citations omitted)
omitted) (emphasis in original).
emphasis in original).
6 While sanctions While deterrenteffect, sanctions do have a deterrent effect, that thatdeterrent
deterrenteffect
effect isis aimed
aimedexclusively
exclusively
at deterring conduct
conduct within
within the
the prison
prisonsetting.
setting.Neither
Neither loss of
of good-time
good-time credits
credits and
and
7 other special
special privileges
privileges nor
nor placement
placement in a Special Housing Unit extend the period 8 of of incarceration
incarceration originally imposed.
imposed. The sanctions are aimed sanctions are aimed exclusively at at the the
9 terms andconditions terms and conditionsof ofthe thesentence
sentencebeing
beingserved
servedbybythe
theinmate.
inmate.Thus
Thus. .... the
the
disciplinary sanctions imposed disciplinary sanctions imposed upon upon appellants
appellants do do not
not constitute
constitute criminal
criminal
10 10 punishment triggering double jeopardy protections.
punishment triggering double jeopardy 11 People People v.
v. Vasquez,
Vasquez, 678 N.E.2d 482,
482,488-89
488-89(N.Y.
(N.Y. 1997).
678 N.E.2d 1997). Disciplinary Disciplinary sanctions
sanctions "may affect
affect the
12 12 type of ofstay
stay and
and may alter any
any good-time credit
credit or
or privileges
privilegesearned,
earned, but
but they
they do
do not
not change
change the
13 original original term term or
or sentence
sentence imposed.
imposed. Any
Anypunishment
punishment resulting
resulting from
from aasubsequent
subsequent criminal
criminal
14 14 prosecution therefore will will not
not result
result in
in aa second
second punishment
punishment for the same conduct."
conduct." Jones,
Jones, 703
15 N.E.2d at at 996.
996. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that prison disciplinary
disciplinary proceedings
proceedings for
for violations
violations of
16 16 prison rules do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution subsequent criminal prosecution for for the same conduct and
same conduct and will
will not grant
17 17 the Motion Motion on on this ground.
ground.
18 1 Defendants also argue
argue that
that a second
second double
Defendants also double jeopardy jeopardy consideration
consideration isis "when an an
19 administrative or civil punishment administrative or punishment isis so so punitive,
punitive, it should
should be deemed
deemed a criminal
criminal penalty
penalty for
20 double jeopardy analysis." double jeopardy analysis." (Taisacan (Taisacan Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at 5). As As noted
noted earlier,
earlier, the principles
principles of
21 double jeopardy may double jeopardy may apply apply "to the
the 'rare'
'rare' case
casein
innon-criminal
non-criminal proceedings
proceedings where
where the
the penalties
penalties
22 imposed serve a punitive imposed serve punitive rather rather than
than a remedial
remedial function."
function." Turner,
Turner, 46 F.Supp.2d
F.Supp.2d at 666.
666.
23 Defendants argue argue that the penalties imposed upon them are unduly that the unduly punitive. (Taisacan Mot.
24 Dismiss at at 5-6).
5-6). "Punitive
"Punitiveinterests
interests and remedial interests and remedial interests...
... are
are nowhere
nowhere so tightly intertwined 25 25 as in the the prison
prison setting,
setting, where the
the government's
government's remedial
remedial interest
interest is to maintain
maintain order
order and to
26 prevent violent altercations altercations among population of among a population of criminals."
criminals." Turner,
Turner, 46 F. Supp.
Supp. ad
2d at
at 667
667
27 (citation omitted)
omitted) (alteration in original).
(alteration in original). "[T]he "[T]hemere
merefact
factthat
thataasanction
sanction imposed
imposed by
by prison
prison
28 28
People v.
v. Taisacan
isacan&& Guerrero
Guerrero
Case No. CF0571-25-0l Case No. CF0571-25-01 && CF0571-25 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 5 of6
of
1 officials has a punitive component does does not mean that the
the sanction
sanction constitutes
constitutes 'punishment'
'punishment' for
2 double jeopardy jeopardy purposes." Id.(citation purposes." Id (citationomitted).
omitted). Here,
Here,although
althoughsignificant,
significant,the
the Court
Court does
does not
3 find that the DHB sanctions imposed to be so harsh and extreme as to invoke imposed upon the defendants to 4 double jeopardy protections. See, See, e.g.,
Ag., People v.
v. Hart, 264 (N.Y. 1999)(finding 263,264
Hart, 710 N.E.2d 263, (finding
5 disciplinary penalty of confinement in Special Housing Unit and and loss
loss of
of privileges for 15
15 years
6 related to the was manifestly related the legitimate, legitimate, noncriminal correctional correctional goals of maintaining safety, 7 prison and discipline and order in the prison and thus thus not
not punishment
punishment for
for purposes of double
purposes of double jeopardy), jeopardy);
8 v. Williams, People v. Williams, 27 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y.
(N.Y. 2006)
2006) (finding that while the disciplinary punishment
9 consisting of of 10
10 years in the special housing unit, 10 years' loss of commissary privileges, loss of 10 phone privileges and the ability to to receive
receive packages, aa restrictive diet for 28 days, full restraints 11 of one year of and a loss of of good time may be be fairly
fairly characterized
characterized as
as severe,
severe, it was commensurate commensurate
12 12 with defendant's breach of defendant's breach rules and prison rules ofprison and regulations regulations and
and not
not so
so harsh
harsh and
and extreme
extreme as
as to require
13 the application of jeopardy to bar of double jeopardy bar aa subsequent subsequent criminal
criminal prosecution).
prosecution). Therefore, the Court
14 14 denies the Motion to Dismiss.
15 15 CONCLUSION 16 16 For the foregoing reasons, reasons, the
the Court
Court hereby
hereby DENIES
DENIES the
the defendants'
defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
17 17 Parties shall return for a Status Hearing on November 21, 21, 2025
2025 at
at 9:30
9:30 a.m.
a.m. The Court will issue
18 an Amended Criminal Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order
Order with asserted
asserted trial dates contemporaneously with in 19 this Decision and Order. 20 20
21. 21 this
ORDERED this
IT IS SO ORDERED m* 1q~ay of November, 2025.
day of
22 22
23
I
24 SERVIC!E VBA SERVISE tE-1\!lAlli!..
v A E-M& =
4L HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ I acknowledge that an
acknowledge that an electronic electronic Judge, Superior Court of Guam copyof the
theoriginal wase-mai l to:
e-mailed to:
25 25 A61 t» I, APP
IJ.PtJ,¢
26 26 Pisa 27 ll 'J.: ~?@ Date:1'l14l>5 2° m me:· :,.:,f~,._
A,,.. Anfvhfv/ C A avz----
28 De Deputy Clerk,SubetiorCourt urtof
ofGuam
Guam
People v. Taisacan & v. Taisacan & Guerrero
Case No.
No. CF0571-25-0l
CF0571-25-01 && CF0571-25 cF0571-25
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 6 of
of6