People v. Talavera

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM Ci: CU/J,l

2 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

)

3 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 4 ) (Motion to Dismiss)

JACOB ANTHONY TALA VERA, )

5 )

Defendant. )

6

7

8 The matter came before the HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON on

9 January 27, 2012 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 11 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 heIdI: "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

15 complaint." People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14,-r 16. Defendant argues that pursuant to People v. 16 Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14 (hereinafter referred to as Rasauo Ir), 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 § 60.1 O. 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,-r,-r 10, 14. 23 Defendant was arrested on March 3, 2010 and given a notice to appear ("NTA") with a

24 date of February 23, 2011. On January 13, 2011, the Complaint was filed, but no summons was

25 issued2.Id. at,-r 7. On February 24, 2011, Magistrate Court recommended a bench warrant be

26

27 I 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 § l5.20(a). Also, currently, all persons arrested for DUl charge are

lof4

issued, due to the Defendant not appearing at the noticed hearing. A Bench Warrant was issued 2 on February 24, 2011 and served on the Defendant on March 28, 2011. This Court appointed 3 Defendant representation on March 28 2011, and set the arraignment for April 4, 2011. 4 Defendant was arraigned after eighty-three (83) days had passed from the filing of the

5 Complaint. 6 The time between the Complaint and the first appearance on March 28, 2011 does 7 violate the 60 day rule announced in Rasauo II. The Court notes that the People concede that 8 there is no good cause for the delay between the filing of the Complaint and the NTA date forty- 9 one (41) days later. This amount of delay does not violate the 60 day rule announced in Rasauo 10 II. The Court will review what days, if any, after March 14, 2011 constitutes good cause or if

11 this case must be dismissed for the 60 day rule violation. 12 The Court finds that the any delay caused by a defendant's failure to appear at an 13 arraignment that has been properly noticed 3 is good cause. Therefore, the delay of arraignment 14 from February 23, 2011 to March 28, 2011 caused by Defendant's failure to appear is good 15 cause for purposes of the 60 day rule. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,-r 32 (citing People v.

16 Johnson, 606 P.2d 738, 746 (Ca1.1980)). 17 Next, the Court must determine if the time the Court allows a defendant to meet and 18 confer with counsel prior to being arraigned is reasonable and constitutes good cause. Title 8 19 Guam Code Annotated section 45.30( c) provides that the Court shall allow reasonable time to a 20 defendant to meet and confer with counsel prior to being arraigned. Meeting with and 21 discussing this with counsel allows a defendant to understand the significance of the 22 arraignment process as well as the defendant's rights, which are asserted or waived at 23 arraignment. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961). It is critical for a defendant to have this 24 understanding at time of arraignment. See e.g. Huston v. Com., 171 S.W.3d 743, 744-45 (Ky. Ct.

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, or (iii) notification that occurs when a defendant is present and hears the court determine the date and time of the continued arraignment.

App. 2005). Further, the concerns of Guam's Supreme Court in People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam

2 1, are not present when a defendant is appointed counsel and the delay between the Complaint

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

4 confer with his appointed attorney. 2011 Guam 1 ,-r 53(quoted by Rasauo, 2011 Guam l4,-r 10).

5 In this case, Defendant's Motion did not address if any delay attributed to time for the

4

6 Defendant to meet and confer with counsel is good cause . Instead, Defendant's Motion arf,JUes

7 that no good cause exists for the violation of the 60 day rule in this case. On the other hand, the

8 Office of the Attorney General has argued that any delay of arraignment occasioned by a

9 continuance granted by the magistrate court should be excused for good cause. The Court

10 disagrees that a bright line rule of any delay caused by a court's calendaring of a criminal matter

11 is automatically good cause under the 60 day rule. Guam's Supreme Court makes it clear that it

12 intended the court and its officers to be subject to the prompt arraignment rule put forth in

13 Rasauo 11. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 14,-r 12; 8 GCA § 80.50(a)("It shall be the duty of all courts and 14 judicial officers ... to expedite such proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the

15 ends of justice"). See also People v. Ilemelong, CF150-10 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 13,2012).

16 Further, the Court rejects the contention that any length of delays caused by the time

17 . r-rrwided to a defendant to meet and confer with an attorney is automatically good cause. The

18 Court finds that a reasonable amount of delay attributed to the time a defendant needs to meet

19 and confer with an attorney is good cause for purposes of the 60 day rule. Cf Flores, 2009

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

22 a defendant to meet and confer with his attorney prior to being arraigned. 8 GCA § 80.50(a).

23 Since the delay in this case relating to time allotted for Defendant to meet and confer with his

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

25 the 60 day rule. 26 . There are eighty-three (83) days between the filing of the Complaint and Defendant's

27

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.

arraignment. Since there is good cause shown for the entire duration of the violation of the 60 2 day rule, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. A criminal trial setting shall occur on February 27,

3 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 4

5 IT IS SO ORDERED this lYofFebruary, 2012.

6

7

8 HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT- ANDERSON Judge, Superior Court of Guam 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 Z4 201l

20

21

22

23

24

25

26