People v. Tedtaotao

Opinion

flOO ~ftERIOR COURT OF GUAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 201Q FEB I 3 AH 9=3 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE~F 6f3~0i.JAT 4 ) IY:_ _ _ __ ) 5 V. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 6 JOSE QUIDACHAY TEDTAOTAO, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ____________________________) 9

10 INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo. Pursuant to Rule 7. 1 of II

12 the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Defendant's motion for diversion was taken

13 under advisement on February 7, 2014. The People are represented by Assistant Attorney 14 General, Richelle J. Yu. Defendant is represented by attorney Howard Trapp. Having reviewed 15 the memorandum and papers presented, the Court now issues the following decision DENYING 16

17 Defendant's motion for diversion.

18 BACKGROUND 19 The Defendant has been charged with one count of Family Violence, as a Misdemeanor

20 arising out of acts allegedly committed on July 17, 20 13. 21 On December 2, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for Diversion. In it he argues that 22 pursuant to 9 GCA § 30.40 he is eligible for diversion. In support of this argument he asserts 23

24 that he has never had a crime diverted, has no felony conviction, has never been sentenced for a

25 violation of 9 GCA §30.40 and that his charge does not involve serious bodily injury. 26 The People filed their opposition to Defendant's motion on February 3, 20 14. In it they 27 assert that the statue upon which Defendant relies was amended and repealed by Guam's 28 Family Violence Act on September 30, 2011 and took effect on March 28, 201 2. They assert Page I of3 that under the new law persons charged with acts of family violence are no longer allowed to 2 enter diversion. Under 9 GCA 30.80 a person is now allowed upon admission of guilt to enter 3 into a deferred plea agreement. However, the People argue that because Defendant in Superior 4 Court of Guam Case No. CM0312-04 has already participated in a prior diversion he is 5

6 ineligible under the statute.

7 DISCUSSION 8 The former Section 30.80 of the Title 9 of the Guam Code allowing for diversion was 9 repealed and re-enacted by Guam Public Law 31-109:3 on September 30, 2011. The amended 10 version took effect on March 28, 2012. No longer allowing for diversion, it now regulates the II

12 circumstances in which a defendant, upon the entry of a plea of guilty, may have his plea

13 deferred. 14 On its face subsection 30.80.1(a)(2) prohibits a person from entering a deferred plea when 15 that person "has participated in a diversion or deferred plea program for family violence, or a 16

17 similar offense in Guam or another locality." 9 GCA § 30.80(a)(2) (2013). In this case

18 Defendant has previously participated in an diversion program and accordingly, is statutorily 19 ineligible to have his plea deferred. 20 II 21 II 22

Page 2 of3 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Defendant' s Motion for Order of Diversion is DENIED.

~ 3 Further Proceedings are set for 2014 at 9:00am. 4

6 SO ORDERED, this jl day of _ _ (:_J: -\::,Lt------ 2014. 7

II

Page 3 of3