lm' . *I ED I* C LEPERIUR COURT 1 GF §U,@,H
2 ZGZZFEB -8 AHI0= 37 3 CLERK Er O X% 4 BvI 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CM0233-2.1 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON 12 TEDTAOTAO, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on November 8, 2021, for
17 hearing on Defendant Chris Junior Anderson Tedtaotao's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss with
18 Prejudice. Present remotely via Zoom were Assistant Attorney General Minni E. Kim on behalf
19 of the People of Guam ("the Government") and counsel for Defendant, Alternate Public
20 Defender Ana Maria C. Gayle. Defendant was not present. Having reviewed the pleadings, the
21 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On June 14, 2021, a grand jury indicted Defendant with the charges of (1) Interfering
24 with the Reporting of Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony), (2) Felony Escape (As a
25 Third Degree Felony); and (3) Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) in Criminal Case No.
26 CF0276-21. (Indictment in CF0276-21, Jun. 14, 2021). Defendant asserted his right to a
27 speedy trial in CF0276-21 at Arraignment on June 23, 2021. Subsequently, on June 29, 2021,
28 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First and Second Charges or in the Alterative for a
People v. Tedtaotao Case No. CM0233-2 I Decision and Order
Page 1 off l Bill of Particulars in CF0276-21. The Government opposed dismissal of the First Charge but
2 requested that the court dismiss the Second Charge of Felony Escape (As a Third Degree
3 Felony) without prejudice "because the facts charged would be better served in its own
4 cornp1aint.as it was a separate course of conduct and because no prejudice would have occurred
5 to the Defendant at this time." (Resp. at 8 in CF0276-21, Jul. 2, 2021).
6 On July 7, 2021, the instant matter commenced with the tiling of a Complaint against
7 Defendant for the charge of Ordinary Escape (As a Misdemeanor). (Con pl., Jul. 7, 2021).
8 On September 8, 2021, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and waived his right to
9 speedy trial in this matter.
10 On October 7, 2021, Defendant tiled a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in this matter.
11 On October 20, 2021, the Government filed its Response, and on October 25, 2021, Defendant
12 tiled his Reply.
13 On October 20, 2021, the court in CF0276-21 denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
14 First Charge but granted the dismissal of the Second Charge of Felony Escape without
15 prejudice, taking judicial notice of the instant criminal matter.' See Dec. & Order at 12-13, Oct.
16 20, 2021.
17 On November 8, 2021 at the calendared Motion Hearing in the instant matter, the parties
18 rested on their briefs, and the Court placed the matter under advisement.
19 DISCUSSION
20 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the charge of Ordinary Escape (As a
21 Misdemeanor) because (1) it is duplicative of the prior pending felony case and as a product of
22 the prosecution's misconduct, and (2) Defendant was not in custody as set forth in the statute.
23 See generally, Mot. Dismiss, Oct. 7, 2021. The Government opposes, arguing that dismissal is
24 not warranted under the argument of duplicity, there was no prosecutorial misconduct, and that
25 l 26 The Court notes that CF0276-21 has since been dismissed. On October 22, 2021, the Government moved to dismiss CF0276-21 without prejudice. (Mot. Dismiss in CF0276-21, Oct. 22, 2021). The court in CF0276-21 27 granted the motion to dismiss and released Defendant, but reserved on whether the matter would be dismissed with or without prejudice. (Minute Entry in CF0276-21, Oct. 25, 2021, Order of Release from Confinement, Oct. 25, 28 2021).
People v. Terlmomo Case No. CM0233-2 l Decision and Order
Page 2 of 5 l there is probable cause to move forward with the charge of Ordinary Escape. See generally,
2 Opp'n, Oct. 20, 2021.
3 Upon review, the Court does not find dismissal to be appropriate on the basis of
4 duplicity, nor does it find it clear that the Government acted in bad faith in choosing to dismiss
5 the charge of Felony Escape (As a Third Degree Felony) in CF0276-21 and retile it as a
6 misdemeanor in the instant case. The Government moved to dismiss the felony escape charge
7 after reviewing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in CF0276-2l. The presumption that the
8 Government sought dismissal of the charge in CF0276-21 in good faith has not been overcome.
9 See e.g., People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 1[ 51 ("The prosecutor's good or bath faith in
10 bringing the motion [to dismiss] is the determining factor in granting or denying the motion."),
11 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 1129 ("we are guided by a presumption of good faith on the
12 part of the prosecution.").
[3 The Court also does not find dismissal warranted on Defendant's claim that the statute
14 does not support the offense charged. The Complaint charges Defendant as follows:
15 On or about the 4th day of June, 2021, CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON TEDTAOTAO, did commit the offense of Ordinary Escape (As a Misdemeanor), 16 in that he intentionally or knowingly escaped from custody, in violation of 9 GCA 17 §§ 58.30 and 58.l0(a).
18 (Comal., Jul. 7, 2021). This charge stems from allegations that Defendant escaped from Guam
19 Behavioral Health and Wellness Center ("GBHWC") airer having been arrested and admitted to 20 GBHWC the same day based on allegations of family violence. (Decl. of Alysa Draper-Dehart,
21 Con pl., Jul. '7, 2021). A GPD Officer was present at GBHWC front area throughout
22 Defendant's admission to GBHWC. Id. When Defendant was escorted outside to have fresh
23 air, Defendant walked around an enclosed area surrounded by a concrete wall about six to seven 24 feet in height. Id. Defendant was followed by a GBHWC employee, Rodrigo Herradura and 25 was also monitored by a GBHWC guard, Frankie Benavente. Id. Defendant then jumped the 26 concrete wall and jumped a chain link fence onto the Guam Memorial Hospital parking lot area.
27 Id. Mr. Benavente followed and saw Defendant get into a white Jeep and leave the area. Id. 28
People v. Tedfaotao Case No. CM0233-21 Decision and Order
Page 3 of S l Defendant argues that because there was no court order of restraint, he was not in custody.
2 (Mot. Dismiss at 12-13).
3 Section 58.10 provides in relevant part:
4 a Customy means restraint by any public officer or employy he pursuant p to an order of a court other than an arrest warrant or restraint by a peace officer or 5 other person concerned in detention: 6 (l) pursuant to an arrest, with or without an arrest warrant, during or 7 subsequent to the official booking of the person arrested, or
8 (2) in a detention facility.
9 (b) Detention Facility means: (I) any place used for confinement, pursuant to an order of a court, of: 10 (A) persons charged with or convicted of an offenses, (B) persons against whom judicial proceedings leading to involuntary 12 confinement have begun, are pending or have been concluded, or 13 (C) persons against whom extradition orders are sought or have been 14 obtained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
lm' . *I ED I* C LEPERIUR COURT 1 GF §U,@,H
2 ZGZZFEB -8 AHI0= 37 3 CLERK Er O X% 4 BvI 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CM0233-2.1 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON 12 TEDTAOTAO, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on November 8, 2021, for
17 hearing on Defendant Chris Junior Anderson Tedtaotao's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss with
18 Prejudice. Present remotely via Zoom were Assistant Attorney General Minni E. Kim on behalf
19 of the People of Guam ("the Government") and counsel for Defendant, Alternate Public
20 Defender Ana Maria C. Gayle. Defendant was not present. Having reviewed the pleadings, the
21 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On June 14, 2021, a grand jury indicted Defendant with the charges of (1) Interfering
24 with the Reporting of Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony), (2) Felony Escape (As a
25 Third Degree Felony); and (3) Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) in Criminal Case No.
26 CF0276-21. (Indictment in CF0276-21, Jun. 14, 2021). Defendant asserted his right to a
27 speedy trial in CF0276-21 at Arraignment on June 23, 2021. Subsequently, on June 29, 2021,
28 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First and Second Charges or in the Alterative for a
People v. Tedtaotao Case No. CM0233-2 I Decision and Order
Page 1 off l Bill of Particulars in CF0276-21. The Government opposed dismissal of the First Charge but
2 requested that the court dismiss the Second Charge of Felony Escape (As a Third Degree
3 Felony) without prejudice "because the facts charged would be better served in its own
4 cornp1aint.as it was a separate course of conduct and because no prejudice would have occurred
5 to the Defendant at this time." (Resp. at 8 in CF0276-21, Jul. 2, 2021).
6 On July 7, 2021, the instant matter commenced with the tiling of a Complaint against
7 Defendant for the charge of Ordinary Escape (As a Misdemeanor). (Con pl., Jul. 7, 2021).
8 On September 8, 2021, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and waived his right to
9 speedy trial in this matter.
10 On October 7, 2021, Defendant tiled a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in this matter.
11 On October 20, 2021, the Government filed its Response, and on October 25, 2021, Defendant
12 tiled his Reply.
13 On October 20, 2021, the court in CF0276-21 denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
14 First Charge but granted the dismissal of the Second Charge of Felony Escape without
15 prejudice, taking judicial notice of the instant criminal matter.' See Dec. & Order at 12-13, Oct.
16 20, 2021.
17 On November 8, 2021 at the calendared Motion Hearing in the instant matter, the parties
18 rested on their briefs, and the Court placed the matter under advisement.
19 DISCUSSION
20 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the charge of Ordinary Escape (As a
21 Misdemeanor) because (1) it is duplicative of the prior pending felony case and as a product of
22 the prosecution's misconduct, and (2) Defendant was not in custody as set forth in the statute.
23 See generally, Mot. Dismiss, Oct. 7, 2021. The Government opposes, arguing that dismissal is
24 not warranted under the argument of duplicity, there was no prosecutorial misconduct, and that
25 l 26 The Court notes that CF0276-21 has since been dismissed. On October 22, 2021, the Government moved to dismiss CF0276-21 without prejudice. (Mot. Dismiss in CF0276-21, Oct. 22, 2021). The court in CF0276-21 27 granted the motion to dismiss and released Defendant, but reserved on whether the matter would be dismissed with or without prejudice. (Minute Entry in CF0276-21, Oct. 25, 2021, Order of Release from Confinement, Oct. 25, 28 2021).
People v. Terlmomo Case No. CM0233-2 l Decision and Order
Page 2 of 5 l there is probable cause to move forward with the charge of Ordinary Escape. See generally,
2 Opp'n, Oct. 20, 2021.
3 Upon review, the Court does not find dismissal to be appropriate on the basis of
4 duplicity, nor does it find it clear that the Government acted in bad faith in choosing to dismiss
5 the charge of Felony Escape (As a Third Degree Felony) in CF0276-21 and retile it as a
6 misdemeanor in the instant case. The Government moved to dismiss the felony escape charge
7 after reviewing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in CF0276-2l. The presumption that the
8 Government sought dismissal of the charge in CF0276-21 in good faith has not been overcome.
9 See e.g., People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 1[ 51 ("The prosecutor's good or bath faith in
10 bringing the motion [to dismiss] is the determining factor in granting or denying the motion."),
11 People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 1129 ("we are guided by a presumption of good faith on the
12 part of the prosecution.").
[3 The Court also does not find dismissal warranted on Defendant's claim that the statute
14 does not support the offense charged. The Complaint charges Defendant as follows:
15 On or about the 4th day of June, 2021, CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON TEDTAOTAO, did commit the offense of Ordinary Escape (As a Misdemeanor), 16 in that he intentionally or knowingly escaped from custody, in violation of 9 GCA 17 §§ 58.30 and 58.l0(a).
18 (Comal., Jul. 7, 2021). This charge stems from allegations that Defendant escaped from Guam
19 Behavioral Health and Wellness Center ("GBHWC") airer having been arrested and admitted to 20 GBHWC the same day based on allegations of family violence. (Decl. of Alysa Draper-Dehart,
21 Con pl., Jul. '7, 2021). A GPD Officer was present at GBHWC front area throughout
22 Defendant's admission to GBHWC. Id. When Defendant was escorted outside to have fresh
23 air, Defendant walked around an enclosed area surrounded by a concrete wall about six to seven 24 feet in height. Id. Defendant was followed by a GBHWC employee, Rodrigo Herradura and 25 was also monitored by a GBHWC guard, Frankie Benavente. Id. Defendant then jumped the 26 concrete wall and jumped a chain link fence onto the Guam Memorial Hospital parking lot area.
27 Id. Mr. Benavente followed and saw Defendant get into a white Jeep and leave the area. Id. 28
People v. Tedfaotao Case No. CM0233-21 Decision and Order
Page 3 of S l Defendant argues that because there was no court order of restraint, he was not in custody.
2 (Mot. Dismiss at 12-13).
3 Section 58.10 provides in relevant part:
4 a Customy means restraint by any public officer or employy he pursuant p to an order of a court other than an arrest warrant or restraint by a peace officer or 5 other person concerned in detention: 6 (l) pursuant to an arrest, with or without an arrest warrant, during or 7 subsequent to the official booking of the person arrested, or
8 (2) in a detention facility.
9 (b) Detention Facility means: (I) any place used for confinement, pursuant to an order of a court, of: 10 (A) persons charged with or convicted of an offenses, (B) persons against whom judicial proceedings leading to involuntary 12 confinement have begun, are pending or have been concluded, or 13 (C) persons against whom extradition orders are sought or have been 14 obtained.
15 (2) Any place to which a person ordered to be confined to a detention facility pursuant to Paragraph (1) has been or is being lawfully taken 16 for purposes of labor, court appearance, recreation, medical or hospital 17 care, transit or similar purpose. 18 (c) Notwithstanding Subsections (a) and (b), neither custody nor detention facility includes release on parole, probation or other correctional supervision, or 19 constraint incident to release, with bail or on one's own recognizance, by court 20 order or by other lawful authority upon condition of subsequent personal 21 appearance at a designated time and place.
22 9 G.C.A. § 58.l0(a)-(c).
23 The Could finds that Defendant's conduct falls within a plain reading of the statue and
24 related definitions. The Court finds Defendant was in custody at GBHWC, pursuant to an
25 arrest. Defendant's placement at GBHWC for mental health concerns did not sufficiently
26 frustrate his custodial status, especially considering that a GPD officer was stationed at the
27 location throughout Defendant's admission. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to
28 Dismiss with Prejudice.
Page 4 of 5 l CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
3 with Prejudice. A Status Hearing is set for March 1. 2022 at10:30 a.m.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED this Q day of February, 2022. 5
Fl 6
8 HONORABLE VERNONFP. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 9
People v. Tedtaotao Case No. CM0233-2 l Decision and Order
Page 5 off