People v. Taisacan

Opinion

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."

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