IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0093:-1 "'j ) ) 4 ) vs. ) 5 ) ) 6 ALBERT TORRES TEDTAOTAO, ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 Defendant. 8
9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on January 15, 2013 10 for Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Attorney Mikaela S. Henderson represented the 11 Defendant. Assistant Attorney General JesseN. Nasis appeared on behalf of the Government. 12 The Court took the motion under advisement. Having reviewed the pleadings and arguments 13 presented, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with burglary of a motor vehicle and related crimes. Defendant
16 moved to have the Court dismiss the case and the Court agreed. In a Decision and Order issued
17 November 5, 2012, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice due to a speedy trial right
18 violation. On November 6, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Dismissal Without Prejudice. The Court took argument on the motion on January 15, 2013. The Court now 19 addresses and resolves all issues remaining in this case. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Standard of Reconsideration 22 Generally, there are several grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be 23 granted. These include situations where the trial court: 1) is presented with new evidence; 2) 24 committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening 25 change in controlling law." Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ,! 10 (April 2, 1998) (citations 26 omitted); See also People v. Haulde, 1999 Guam 3. GRCP Rule 60 states in relevant part:
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page I of5- (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly 2 Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal 3 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ( 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 4 excusable neglect...(6) any other reason justifying relief from the 5 operation of the judgment. GRCP Rule 60. In addition, "no motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or 6 1 written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion". CVR 7.1(i). 7 Thus, the Court will only decide the issue of whether or not grounds for reconsideration exist. 8 This Court will not decide on the merits ofthe case once again. 9 In the case here, Defendant alleges that the Court made its decision in error, in part, and IO cites to several Guam Superior Court cases. Defendant limits the request for reconsideration II solely to the Court's Decision and Order making dismissal without prejudice. Defendant argues I2 that only dismissal with prejudice could remedy a statutory speedy trial violation. 13 In opposition, the Government argues that there is simply no authority that requires with I4 prejudice dismissal. The Government also mentions that nearly all of the Superior Court I5 decisions cited by Defendant base the respective holdings on interpretations of statutes very
I6 different from the relevant Guam statute here. One of the cases cited to that does interpret
17 Guam statutes, People v. Santos, CF67-04 (Super. Ct. of Guam, 2005), granted dismissal
18 without prejudice.
I9 Merits for Reconsideration The Court excludes discussion outside of clear court error as there is no suggestion of 20 new evidence, fraud, void judgment or satisfied judgment. Thus, reconsideration may only be 2I granted if the Court finds that it made a mistake in its earlier ruling. Ward at~ 10; Haulde at~ 22 13. 23
26 1 Where the Court is left with no applicable criminal rule. the Court may apply the relevant civil rules.
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 2 of 5- Standard for With Prejudice Dismissal
2 Dismissal in a criminal case shall be with prejudice when there is actual prejudice to the
3 defendant and the defendant's ability to prepare a defense. The length of delay is the most essential factor for a trial court, but, there are other factors to consider. The United States 4 Supreme Court stated "[t]he longer the delay, the greater the presumptive or actual prejudice to 5 the defendant, in terms of his ability to prepare for trial or the restriction on his liberty". United 6 States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 340 (1988). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has 7 recognized that "[ d]ismissal without prejudice is not a toothless sanction" because "it forces the 8 Government to obtain a new indictment if it decides to reprosecute, and it exposes the 9 prosecution to dismissal on statute of limitations grounds." !d. at 342. Where the violations 10 involve both constitutional and statutory violations of the defendant's speedy trial right there is 11 a greater likelihood for with prejudice dismissal. 12 While courts acknowledge the deleterious impact that pre-trial detention may have on an 13 individual, a defendant's prolonged pre-trial confinement, alone, is not enough to show that the
14 interests of justice weigh in favor of dismissal with prejudice. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.
15 514, 537(1972). A court should also consider the seriousness of the offense as the more serious
16 the offense, the more weight given to dismissal without prejudice. United States v. Clymer, 25 F .3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994). The interests of the Victim and interests of the public also play 17 an important role in this evaluation. There are many factors to be considered when evaluating 18 actual prejudice. Under liberty concerns, the courts should consider effects on employment, 19 financials, social association, anxiety of the defendant, anxiety of friends and family, and public 20 criticism. Taylor, 340. In combination with the overall length of delay, the Court should 21 consider the fading memories of witnesses and deterioration of exculpatory evidence to 22 establish actual prejudice. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 654 (1992). 23 In the present case, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is entirely 24 appropriate where the circumstances support such a finding. Defendant fails to convince the 25 Court that the only possible remedy is dismissal with prejudice as multiple United States 26 Supreme Court decisions, cited above, discuss the ability for a court to apply the relevant
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 3 of5- factors and decide whether to dismiss a case with or without prejudice? Defendant fails to
2 convince the Court that the only possible remedy for a statutory speedy trial violation is
3 dismissal with prejudice? Here, there was a pre-trial incarceration amounting to 272 days, but the majority of the time passed while Defendant waived his right to a speedy trial. The Court 4 also notes that Defendant's speedy trial right was only violated by five days, but it is the total 5 length of Defendant's pre-trial incarceration and other factors that concerns the Court most. 6 The Court will balance the factors provided to it by the United States Supreme Court to 7 make a determination. Defendant has presented no support of any factor to show that actual 8 prejudice occurred. There are no suggestions that witnesses are now unavailable or that 9 exculpatory evidence is now missing or deteriorated. The Court must also consider the public 10 interest factor and the impact on the alleged victim of dismissal with prejudice. Defendant has 11 a significant criminal history involving serious theft crimes and the Court would be 12 apprehensive with a permanent bar to prosecution for the acts alleged out of concern for the 13 victim and the public.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0093:-1 "'j ) ) 4 ) vs. ) 5 ) ) 6 ALBERT TORRES TEDTAOTAO, ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 Defendant. 8
9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on January 15, 2013 10 for Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Attorney Mikaela S. Henderson represented the 11 Defendant. Assistant Attorney General JesseN. Nasis appeared on behalf of the Government. 12 The Court took the motion under advisement. Having reviewed the pleadings and arguments 13 presented, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with burglary of a motor vehicle and related crimes. Defendant
16 moved to have the Court dismiss the case and the Court agreed. In a Decision and Order issued
17 November 5, 2012, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice due to a speedy trial right
18 violation. On November 6, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Dismissal Without Prejudice. The Court took argument on the motion on January 15, 2013. The Court now 19 addresses and resolves all issues remaining in this case. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Standard of Reconsideration 22 Generally, there are several grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be 23 granted. These include situations where the trial court: 1) is presented with new evidence; 2) 24 committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening 25 change in controlling law." Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ,! 10 (April 2, 1998) (citations 26 omitted); See also People v. Haulde, 1999 Guam 3. GRCP Rule 60 states in relevant part:
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page I of5- (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly 2 Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal 3 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ( 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 4 excusable neglect...(6) any other reason justifying relief from the 5 operation of the judgment. GRCP Rule 60. In addition, "no motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or 6 1 written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion". CVR 7.1(i). 7 Thus, the Court will only decide the issue of whether or not grounds for reconsideration exist. 8 This Court will not decide on the merits ofthe case once again. 9 In the case here, Defendant alleges that the Court made its decision in error, in part, and IO cites to several Guam Superior Court cases. Defendant limits the request for reconsideration II solely to the Court's Decision and Order making dismissal without prejudice. Defendant argues I2 that only dismissal with prejudice could remedy a statutory speedy trial violation. 13 In opposition, the Government argues that there is simply no authority that requires with I4 prejudice dismissal. The Government also mentions that nearly all of the Superior Court I5 decisions cited by Defendant base the respective holdings on interpretations of statutes very
I6 different from the relevant Guam statute here. One of the cases cited to that does interpret
17 Guam statutes, People v. Santos, CF67-04 (Super. Ct. of Guam, 2005), granted dismissal
18 without prejudice.
I9 Merits for Reconsideration The Court excludes discussion outside of clear court error as there is no suggestion of 20 new evidence, fraud, void judgment or satisfied judgment. Thus, reconsideration may only be 2I granted if the Court finds that it made a mistake in its earlier ruling. Ward at~ 10; Haulde at~ 22 13. 23
26 1 Where the Court is left with no applicable criminal rule. the Court may apply the relevant civil rules.
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 2 of 5- Standard for With Prejudice Dismissal
2 Dismissal in a criminal case shall be with prejudice when there is actual prejudice to the
3 defendant and the defendant's ability to prepare a defense. The length of delay is the most essential factor for a trial court, but, there are other factors to consider. The United States 4 Supreme Court stated "[t]he longer the delay, the greater the presumptive or actual prejudice to 5 the defendant, in terms of his ability to prepare for trial or the restriction on his liberty". United 6 States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 340 (1988). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has 7 recognized that "[ d]ismissal without prejudice is not a toothless sanction" because "it forces the 8 Government to obtain a new indictment if it decides to reprosecute, and it exposes the 9 prosecution to dismissal on statute of limitations grounds." !d. at 342. Where the violations 10 involve both constitutional and statutory violations of the defendant's speedy trial right there is 11 a greater likelihood for with prejudice dismissal. 12 While courts acknowledge the deleterious impact that pre-trial detention may have on an 13 individual, a defendant's prolonged pre-trial confinement, alone, is not enough to show that the
14 interests of justice weigh in favor of dismissal with prejudice. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.
15 514, 537(1972). A court should also consider the seriousness of the offense as the more serious
16 the offense, the more weight given to dismissal without prejudice. United States v. Clymer, 25 F .3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994). The interests of the Victim and interests of the public also play 17 an important role in this evaluation. There are many factors to be considered when evaluating 18 actual prejudice. Under liberty concerns, the courts should consider effects on employment, 19 financials, social association, anxiety of the defendant, anxiety of friends and family, and public 20 criticism. Taylor, 340. In combination with the overall length of delay, the Court should 21 consider the fading memories of witnesses and deterioration of exculpatory evidence to 22 establish actual prejudice. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 654 (1992). 23 In the present case, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is entirely 24 appropriate where the circumstances support such a finding. Defendant fails to convince the 25 Court that the only possible remedy is dismissal with prejudice as multiple United States 26 Supreme Court decisions, cited above, discuss the ability for a court to apply the relevant
Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 3 of5- factors and decide whether to dismiss a case with or without prejudice? Defendant fails to
2 convince the Court that the only possible remedy for a statutory speedy trial violation is
3 dismissal with prejudice? Here, there was a pre-trial incarceration amounting to 272 days, but the majority of the time passed while Defendant waived his right to a speedy trial. The Court 4 also notes that Defendant's speedy trial right was only violated by five days, but it is the total 5 length of Defendant's pre-trial incarceration and other factors that concerns the Court most. 6 The Court will balance the factors provided to it by the United States Supreme Court to 7 make a determination. Defendant has presented no support of any factor to show that actual 8 prejudice occurred. There are no suggestions that witnesses are now unavailable or that 9 exculpatory evidence is now missing or deteriorated. The Court must also consider the public 10 interest factor and the impact on the alleged victim of dismissal with prejudice. Defendant has 11 a significant criminal history involving serious theft crimes and the Court would be 12 apprehensive with a permanent bar to prosecution for the acts alleged out of concern for the 13 victim and the public. Finally, with all considered above, the Court does not find any bad faith
14 by the Government or the Court in causing the delay.
15 Defendant alleges that the Court committed clear error in finding that dismissal should
16 be without prejudice. According to the standard for with prejudice dismissal discussed above, it appears as the Court did not commit clear error. Here, the Court disagrees with Defendant as 17 the Court did fully consider the number of days Defendant spent awaiting trial. While the 18 extended delay in this case was great, the Court concludes actual prejudice has not occurred and 19 Defendant may be subject to reprosecution in this matter. Thus, the Court will not grant 20 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds that Defendant's pre-trial 21 incarceration, while excessive, was not so excessive that actual prejudice occurred based on the 22
23 2 The dissenting opinion in Taylor, while not controlling here, describes the Court's view on Defendant's arguments very well: This is the kind of case that reasonable judges may decide differently ... But even on the remaining question whether 24 the dismissal of two of the three counts pending against respondent should have been with or without prejudice, there is room for disagreement between conscientious and reasonable judges. The question, however, is one that district judges are in a much better position to answer wisely than are appellate judges. Taylor at 346. 25 3 The United States Supreme Court cases reviewed and cited by this Court discuss the factors relevant to a with prejudice dismissal. Thus, in situations where the factors weigh against dismissal with prejudice. the Court has complete authority to find 26 that dismissal is without prejudice. Taylor, 334; See United States v. Engstrom, 7 F.3d 1423 (9th Cir. 1993).
People v. Tedtaotao, Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 4 of5- facts present in this specific case. The Court does, however, appreciate the length of
2 Defendant's pre-trial incarceration. The Court hopes that this length of time be considered by
any future court assigned in the event that Defendant is re-indicted. 3 CONCLUSION 4 The Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. 5
6 So ORDERED this____!...£:___ day of March, 2013.
8 HON RABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 9 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 10
II
14 I I
17 I I
20 I I
23 I I
?- ~::>
People v. Decision and Order CF0093-12 -Page 5 of5-