People v. Uncangco

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: CF0225-24
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ln8 a § r .; Ll § 5 2 I , .1 =~

s:"f"*v.,. 1 ' M Q i'

2 "'i. 0L"5 JH! 2325 ;_,;. pegp;..,llE22 .?? ,w, 22 !"'• QO l· GQ 1;;

4 OF G QQJM & - i lt'.\rJ1 .....---:! ....... , ... t . ~ ~

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASECASEno. NO.CF0225-24 CF0225-24 ) GPD GPD REPORT nos.24-06796/24-07983/24-08004 REPORT NOS. 24-06796/24-07983/24-08004 8 ) 9 vs. ) ) 10 10 ) DAVID DAVID QUICHOCHO ) DECISION AND ORDER 11 UNCANGCO, UNCANGCO, JR., JR., RE. DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ) 12 12 DOB: DOB:07/26/1970 0712611970 ) DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ) 113 Defendant. )) > 14 14

15 INTRODUCTION 15

16 16 This matter is before the Honorable Maria Maria T. T. Cenzon Cenzon upon upon Defendant Defendant David Quichoch David Quichocho

17 17 Uncangco, Jr.'s ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss with (the "Motion"). with Prejudice (the "Motion"). Representing Representing the 18 18 Defendant is Assistant Alternate Public Defender Defender Peter Peter J. J. Santos. Santos. Representing Representing the People of o 19 19 Guam ("the ("the People") People") isisSpecial SpecialAssistant Assistant Attorney AttorneyGeneral General Curtis Curtis C. C. Van Van de veld. The Court took The Court 20 20

21 the Motion under underadvisement advisementpursuant pursuantto to CRCR 1.1(g)(4)(B)and l.l(g)(4)(B) andCVR CVR7.l(e)(6)(E) 7.1(e)(6)(E) of of the theLOC LOCAL

22 22 RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM. GUAM.

23 23 After having having received received and and reviewed reviewed the the papers, papers, arguments, arguments, and the file file herein, herein, the the Court Cou 24 24 issues the following Decision issues the Decision and and Order Order DENYING Defendant's Defendant's Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss with wi 25 Prejudice. 26 26

27 27 // II

28 28 II//

People v. v. Uncangco, Uncangco, Criminal Case No. CF0225-24 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to to Dismiss with Prejudice Page Pagel1 of 8 1 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 This matter matter began on on April April15, 15,2024, 2024, upon upon the the grand grand jury jury returning returning an an Indictment Indictment against agains 3 the Defendant, wherein the Defendant, whereinthe theDefendant Defendantwas wascharged chargedwith withthe thefollowing following offenses: offenses: Two Two Counts of 4 5 the First Charge Charge of of Retail Theft (Asaa Second Theft (As Second Degree DegreeFelony) Felony)and andthe the Second Second Charge of of Possession 5

6 6 of of aa Schedule Schedule II Controlled Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), Substance (As Felony). The Theevents eventsas as charged charged in in the

7 7 Indictment stem from from events that that occurred occurredon onApril April 5, 2024. 2024.According MilaBruan, According to Ms. Mila Bruan, aa store 8 8 entered Vince employee, the Defendant allegedly entered Jewelers and Vince Jewelers and requested requested to to view gold baht view two gold bah 9 chains and and one one diamond pendant with with a total total value of of $24,290.00. $24,290.00. Deck. Deel. of of Prob. Cause 6 Cause (Apr. 6, 10

11 11 2024). When asked to provide asked to provide identification, the Defendant Defendant fled fled the the scene scene in in aa rented vehicle. Id. rentedvehicle. Id

12 12 Police located located the vehicle and and effected aa traffic traffic stop. Id. Police stop. Id Policeobtained obtainedconsent consent to to search search the th 13 13 vehicle, wherein vehicle, whereinthe the police policefound founditems itemsthat that contained contained suspected methamphetamine.Id. suspected methamphetamine. Id Field Field tests 14 14 confirmed aa presumptive presumptive positive test for methamphetamine, methamphetamine, and and the the police police located one of located one th of the 15 15 stolen golden golden baht chains. chains.Id. Id 16. 16

17 17 Jury Jury Selection Selection and Trial was was scheduled scheduled for June 10, for June 10, 2024. However, on the the day day of of trial, the

18 18 lodged a Motion to People lodged to Dismiss Dismiss on the grounds that the Office of the Attorney General Genera 19 19 ("OAG")received ("OAG") receivednew new informationregarding information regardingthis thismatter matterand and further investigation was inquired. further investigation 20 20 Ppl. 's Mot. to to Dismiss (Jun. 10, Dismiss (Jun. 10, 2024). 2024). Accepting the People's Accepting the People'srepresentation, representation, the the Court Court granted grante 21 22 the People's People's motion motionand and dismissed dismissed the case without prejudice. Old Ord.ofofDism. Dism. Without Without Prey. Prej. (Jun. (Jun. 22

23 23 10, 10, 2024). 24 24 On July July 10, 10, 2024, 2024,the theDefendant Defendantfiled filed aa Motion Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The basis basis for 25 I . o . . . Motion isis the Defendant's Motlon the followmgc following: (1) (1)the thegovernment's government'strue truereason reasonfor forrequesting requesting dlsmlssal dismissa 26 26 was to was to prevent prevent aa dismissal dismissalwith withprejudice prejudiceunder under88GCA GCA§§ 80.60(a)(2) 80.60(a)(2) concerning concerning speedy speedytrial, trial, (2) (2) 27 27

28 28 a press press release release by by the the OAG OAG reveals reveals that that two witnesses witnesses were unavailable unavailable to testify testify for for the the instant instan

People v. v. Uncangco,Criminal Uncangco, Case Case No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Decision and Re. Defendant's Motion and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss Dismiss with with Prejudice Page 2 of 8 1 case, case, GPD Seargent Seargent Chris Chris Champion Champion and and Ms. Miller Milla Bean, Bruan,warranting dismissal, 1 (3) warrantingdismissa1,1 (3) defense defens 2 counsel became aware that Champion Champion was actually on-island on-island during during the the entirety entirety of ofJune June 2024, 2024, and an 3 (4) (4) had had defense defense counsel counsel known known about absences of about the absences of the witnesses, witnesses, he objected to the would have objected he would 4 dismissal. See Def dismissal. See Def 's 's Mot. at at pp. 1-2. 5

6 The People People filed filedtheir theirOpposition Oppositionon onSeptember September16, 2024. The grounds for their opposition 16, 2024.

7 7 are as follows: (1) (1)the thegovernment governmentbears bearsthe the burden burden of ofproof proofat attrial trialand and has has discretion discretion whether it 8 8 to trial, can bring a matter to and (2) trial, and dismissal with (2) dismissal showing of with prejudice requires aa showing faith on bad faith of bad th on the 9 part part of the the government, government, and the the Defendant has failed Defendant has bad faith - in failed to show any bad in contrast, contrast, the th 10 10

11 11 government's government's dismissal dismissal of ofthis this instant See Ppl. 's faith.See instant was based on good faith. Opp. (Sept. 16, 's Opp. 16, 2024)

12 12 atop. pp. 4-8. 4-8. 13 13 Contemporaneous withthe Contemporaneous with thePeople's People's Opposition, Opposition,Acting Acting Chief Prosecutor Gloria L. Prosecutor Gloria 14 14 Rudolph submitted a declaration Rudolph submitted to the declaration to Court regarding the Court theDefendant's regardingthe Motion. The Court Defendant's Motion. find Court finds 15 16 relevant the following following representations representations made by Rudolph: Rudolph: 16

17 17 2. While While preparing preparing to to interview interview Mtnesses, witnesses, II had had been been informed certain that certain informed that individuals were not on island and andwouldn't wouldn't be be available available for for trial. 18 3. 3. After After interviewing interviewing witnesses, witnesses, more more information and evidence was provided information and provided 19 19 which indicated that that Mr. Mr. Uncangco did not act alone. 20 20 4. The The newly newly uncovered uncovered information information necessitated necessitated dismissal dismissal of ofthis this matter matter so so that that 21 new charges and aanew new party partycould could be beadded addedto toprosecution prosecutionof ofthe thecriminal criminal activity activity covered covered by by this this case. 22

23 23 5. I made this representation representationin inCourt Courtwhen wheelI appeared Maria appeared before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon Cenzon on on June June 10, 2024, for Jury 2024, for and relied Jury Selection and relied on this this to justify the 24 24 Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Without Prejudice. 25 6. Defendant and and his his counsel counseldid didnot notobject object to to the theMotion Motion to Dismiss, having been 26 informed that new informed that new charges and a potential charges and co-actor would potential co-actor would be be added added toto an an Indictment. 27

11 See See attached attachedEx. Ex. A A to Def Def 's 's Mot. Mot.

People People v. v. Uncangco, Uncangco, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Deflendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Defendant's Motion Page 3 of of88 1 9. On On August August 6, 2024, the charges which had been in 6, 2024, CF0225-24 were in CF0225-24 were revised in the Indictment in in CF0557-24 CF0557-24 to to conform to the evidence that was uncovered while was uncovered while 2 preparing preparing for trialtrial in in CF0225-24, CF0225-24, which which changes included charging changes included Defendant charging Defendant 3 Uncangco with with additional additional charges charges and and adding adding a a new new Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Frances Frances Janet Janet Sahagon Cruz Cruz to to the the new new case. This was all done in case. This in good faith and good faith furtherance of and furtherance of 4 the proper exercise of of prosecutorial authority. These are some of prosecutorial authority. actions that I the actions ofthe indicated would would take place as submitted the motion to dismiss without prejudice as I submitted 5 and appeared appearedbeforebeforeJudge Cenzon.IfIfany JudgeCenzon. mentionof anymention GPD Officer ofGPD Champion was Officer Champion 6 made made to the Court by the Court anyone, that by anyone, that Officer Champion was Officer Champion was off-island, such off-island, such representation wouldwould have been error. error. II believe confusion may have been from that confusion believe that 7 the absence absence of of Ms. Julie Chen from from QQ Rental being off-islandoff-islandas both names begin as both begin 8 with II CH, 11and with "CH," and the the fact fact that that Sgt. Sgt. Champion Champion was was not not available attempted to when II attempted available when schedule a pretrial interview, interview,but butsuch such tartar ertar isis aa minor minor factual factual issue or error as the 9 remaining remaining basesbases ofof my statements statements for for supporting supporting the dismissal were the dismissal accurate.If were accurate. If I did not not misspeak, misspeak, the the error error inin the the communication communicationby bythe the Attorney Office of the theOffice 10 General's Office Office would wouldsimply simplybe beaamistake mistake by bysomeone someone else not the basis for and not else and 11 11 the dismissal dismissal informed to the Court.

12 12 Deck. Deel. in Support of ofPpl. Ppl. 's's Opp. Opp. to Mot. to to Dism. Dism. With With Prey. (Sept. 16, 2024) at ,r,r Prej. (Sept. W 2-6, 9.

13 13

14 14 DISCUSSION

15 15 Guam law provides provides the the procedure upon which which a prosecutor move for case dismissal. maymove prosecutormay

16 16 8 GCA §§ 80.70(a) 8 GCA 80.70(a) reads asfollows: reads as follows: 17 17 (a) The The prosecuting attorney may prosecuting attorney Mth leave of may with court file of court dismissal of file aa dismissal an of an 18 18 indictment, information or indictment, information or complaint complaint and and the the prosecution thereupon shall thereupon prosecution shall terminate. Such aa dismissal dismissal may may notnot be consent of tiled during the trial without the consent be filed of 19 19 the defendant. The prosecuting defendant. The shallfile attorneyshall prosecuting attorney statement of file a statement reasons for of his reasons 20 20 seeking dismissal when seeking dismissal when he appliesfor heapplies for leave file aa dismissal leave to file and where leave is dismissal and granted the the court's court's order order shall shall set forth the set forth reasonsfor the reasons for granting such leave. granting such leave. 21

22 22 8GCA§80.70(a). 8 GCA § 80.70(a). 23 Guam statute statutedoes doesnot notdirectly directly provide provide for for dismissals dismissals with with prejudice. The Guam prejudice. The Suprem Guam Supreme 24 Court, Court, in in examining examining a motion motion to to dismiss dismiss under under §§ 80.70(a), 80.70(a), has has stated stated that that "the "the prosecutor prosecutor is i 25

26 recognized recognized as of good faith as having a presumption of in bringing the motion ... faith in the motion andthe ... and shoul motion should 26

27 27 generally generally be granted as a matter granted as matter of of course." People v. course." People Gutierrez, 2005 v. Gutierrez, ,r,r 51-52. Guam 19 W 2005 Guam 51-52.

28 28 However, goodfaith.' ofgood lackof ofaalack showingof However,this this presumption presumption is not absolute absolute and and"is "is rebutted rebuttedupon uponaashowing faith."

People People v. v. Uncangco, Uncangco, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Decision and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Page Page 4 of8 of 1 ~ 53 (quoting Id. 1] v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, States v. (quoting United States th were the Even were 1982). Even (5th Cir. 1982). 352 (5th 348, 352 2 2 presumption overcome showing of by aa showing overcome by bad faith, ofbad "section80.70(a) faith, "section doesnot 80.70(a)does authorize trial notauthorize court trial courts 3 to sue sponte dismiss sua sponge withprejudice." indictmentswith dismiss indictments Id ~1[69. prejudice."Id. 69."[T]he to a options available to "[T]he [only] options 4 court upon aa finding court upon finding of of bad faith faith by by the the prosecution prosecutionininbringing bringingaaTitle Title88GCA GCA § 80.70(a) motion motio 5

6 6 are to either grant to either ordeny grantor themotion denythe [todismiss motion[to withoutprejudice]." dismisswithout Id ~~ prejudice]."Id. W 74-75.

7 A. Defendant's Defendant's speedy trial rights speedy trial rights were not violated. 8 Defendant first argues that "the real reason was to abuse procedural process criminal procedural abuse the criminal 9 to to prevent prevent aa dismiss dismiss with withprejudice prejudiceunder under8 8GCA GCA§§ 80.60(a)(2) 80.60(a)(2) Speedy Speedy Trial Trial (45 (45 days)." Deft. Deft.'s 10 10

11 Mot. at Mot. On the 2. On at 2. issue of the issue Defendant's speedy whether Defendant's of whether rights were speedy rights violated,the were violated, theCourt turns to the CourtTums

12 12 speedy-trial analysis as provided by the Guam Supreme Court in People v. Stephen, 2009 Guam v. Stephen, 13 1 8. Stephen's Stephen's analysis analysis is is as follows: "In determining whether "In determining the Sixth whether the Amendment right Sixth Amendment to a speedy right to 14 14 trial has been violated, one must consider: been violated, (1) the length of the delay; consider: (1) the reason for the delay; delay, (2) the delay, 15 16 (3) the defendant's assertion the defendant's ofthe assertion of the right speedy trial, to aa speedy right to and (4) trial; and whether or 4) whether not prejudice or not resulte prejudice resulted 16

17 17 Stephen, 2009 Guam from the delay." Stephen, ~ 14 Guam 88 'll 14 (citing 1999 Guam 8 ~1]22). People v. Mendiola, 1999 (citing People

18 18 arraignmen It is uncontroverted that the Defendant asserted his speedy trial rights at his arraigmnent 119 . . 1 u . on Apr The Court Aprilll 25, 2024. The now conslders Court now the other considers the three (3) factors other three in conslderlng factors in whethe considering whether 20 Defendant's Defendant's speedy trial rights were violated. speedy trial 21 a. Defendant's matter matter was not not delayed delayedin in bringing to trial. bringing itit to trial. 22 22

23 The Courts review of the record and filings indicate that there was no delay from bringing

24 24 the matter to trial in consideration of Defendant's speedy speedy trial a confined at was confined Defendant was rights. Defendant trial rights. 25 25 the time of his arraignment and invocation of his speedy trial rights on April 25, on April 2024, meaning 25, 2024, 26 26 the Court Court would would have have to bring bring the the matter matter to to trial trial no no later later than than June 2024. 2 Between the time the 9, 2024.2 June 9, 27 27

28 28

See88GCA 22 See GCA §§ 80.60 80.60(a)(2). (a)(2).The TheCourt Courtwould would have haveno longer than no longer thanforty-five forty-five (45) (45) days to bring days to bring the the Defendant Defendant to to trial. trial.

People v. Uncangco, Uncangco, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss Dismiss with with Prejudice Page 5 of8 1 Defendant's assertion assertion to the scheduled trial date, scheduled trial date, motions tha party that either party from either were not filed from motions were 2 tolled tolled the the speedy speedy trial. Therefore, Therefore,the theCourt finds that Courtfinds there was no delay in that there the matter to in bringing the 3 trial, and, and, subsequently, therewas subsequently, there wasno reasonfor noreason any delay. for any The Court now turns delay. The to the turns to issue of the issue 4

prejudice prejudice to the the Defendant. 5

6 b. The Defendant sufficientfor showing sufficient Defendant has failed to make a showing finding of prejudice. for aa finding

7 The Court these proceedings, it course of these Court finds finds that that because no delay because no delay existed during the course 8 8 stands to reason stands to reasonthat thatthe theDefendant suffered no Defendantsuffered prejudice. However, noprejudice. Defendant argues the Defendant However, the that the argues that 9 People's People'smisrepresentation ofthe misrepresentation of justification for the justification dismissal prejudiced for dismissal Defendant. Again, the prejudiced the Defendant. 10

11 Defendant failed to show how the "disingenuous"3 nature Defendant has failed justification effected thejustification of the nature of effected prejudice

12 12 speedy trial toward the Defendant's speedy rights. However, trial rights. assuming arguendo However,assuming that aa nexus arguendo that exist nexus exists 13 13 between between the alleged disingenuous justification alleged disingenuous and the justification and rights, the the Defendant's speedy trial rights, Co the Court 14 14 examines the justification and thejustification evidence proffered and evidence proffered before this Court. 15 15 As prescribed As prescribed earlier, the People are presumed to act on good faith when bringing a motion People are 16 16

17 17 to dismiss. dismiss. See ,r,r 51-52. However, this presumption is not absolute and See Gutierrez 'IW and "is "is rebutted

18 18 upon aa showing showingof of aalack lackof ofgood good faith:' ,r 53 Id 'll faiths' Id. 53 (quoting United United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, States v. 19 19 352 352 (5th Cir. 1982). 1982). The Court Court examines whether the examines whether "presumption of the "presumption faith" has of good faith" bee has been 20 20 sufficiently sufficiently rebutted. On June rebutted. On 10, 2024, June 10, theday 2024,the of trial, dayof the People moved trial, the this Court moved this dismis Court to dismiss 21

this case case without without prejudice prejudice on on the the grounds that certain grounds that witnesses were certain witnesses unavailable and were unavailable ne and new 22 22

23 information information was gathered See Min. Entry gathered concerning this matter. See (Jun. 10, 2024); Entry (Jun. Pp/. 's' see also Ppl. 2024), see

24 24 Mot. to to Dismiss Dismiss (Jun. (Jun. 10, tha explains that that explains OAGthat proffers aa press release by the OAG 2024). Defendant proffers 10, 2024). 25

27 27 33 See See Def's Mot. atat 2. Def's Mot "The new 2. "The information divulged new information divulged in the Attorney in the General'spress Attorney General's release isis proof pressrelease positive that proofpositive that the 28 was disingenuous prosecution was prosecution without prejudice dismissal without the dismissal requestingthe for requesting reason for their reason abouttheir disingenuous about prejudice and that the and that the real reason was was toto abuse abuse the the criminal criminal procedural procedural processes processes toto prevent prevent aa dismissal dismissal with with prejudice prejudice under 8 GCA §§ 80.60(a)(2) 80.60(a)(2 Trial (45 days)." Speedy Trial

People v. v. Uncangco, Criminal Case Uncangco, Criminal Case No. No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Re. Defendant's Decision and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Defendant's Motion Page 6 of8 of 1 one of Mila Bruan, the Ms. Mila of two witnesses: Ms. of the reasons for the dismissal was the unavailability of 2 2 u u . . Vlctlm, Victim,and andSergeant Sergeant Chrlstopher Christopher Charnpron. See Def Champion. See Defense counsel Mot., Ex. A. Defense Def 's Mot., represent counsel represents 3 that Sgt. fact, on-island Sgt. Champion was, in fact, for the on-island for entirety of the entirety June. Id. of June. 1-2. The People counter at 1-2. Id at 4 5 Sgt. Champion's absence was not that Sgt. "the lone not "the basis for lone basis dismissal sought for the dismissal on June sought on 10, 2024, June 10, 5

66 as the government's motion for government's motion dismissal was also predicated on the missing witness Bruan for dismissal Bruin and

77 the need for further further investigation." Chief Prosecutor Gloria L. Rudolp Acting Chief 8. Acting Pp!. 's Opp. at 8. investigation." See Ppl. Rudolph 8 declaration, "If further explained in her declaration, mention of GPD Officer Champion was made to the any mention "If any 9 anyone, that Court by anyone, Officer Champion that Officer was off-island, Champion was such representation off-island, such bee representation would have been 10

11 11 error." See Deck. ,r 9. Certainly, Deel. (Sept. 16, 2024)119. Chief Prosecutor Rudolph does not claim Acting Chief Certainly, Acting

12 in her declaration that she she named named the two two witnesses witnesses before this Court. Court. Id. ,r,r 3, 9.9. Further, Rudolph Id WE,

13 13 represented represented before before this Court that further investigation this Court was required investigation was as the basis for the dismissal, required as 14 14 as new information was received. See Min. 9:25:08 AM. Min. Entry (Jun. 10, 2024) at 9:25:08 AM. 15 15 Guam law is clear on the proof in criminal cases: "No person may of proof the prosecution's burden of 16 1

17 17 be convicted of offense is of the offense of an offense unless each of proved beyond is proved reasonable doubt." 8 beyond aa reasonable

18 18 GCA §§ 90.21(a). GCA 90.2l(a). When the prosecution When the prosecution cannot cannot meet meet its burden, they may tile its burden, file with with leave leave of of court co 119 I I . . 1 . | aa dismissal dlsmlssal while while filing filing aa statement statement of reasons for ofreasons for seeking seeking dlsmlssal. dismissal. See See 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.70(a). 80.70(a). Here, 20 representation of the the Court considers the representation witness's unavailability. Assuming the witness's that Sgt. arguendo that Assuming arguendo 21

22 Champion Champion was, was, in fact, on-island in fact, the duration throughout the on-island throughout of June duration of and thus was available to testify, June and 22

23 23 the Defendant not dispute does not Defendant does Buan's unavailability dispute Ms. Buan's at the unavailability at time of the time trial. Certainly, the People oftrial.

24 24 have discretion as to discretion as the Victim's and the trial, and statutory burden at trial, their statutory meet their to meet intend to they intend to how they 25 2 I . . I » 1 I unava1lab111ty havebeen mayhave unavailability may evaluatedasaswarranting beenevaluated motion to warrantingaamotion dlsmlss by to dismiss the People. by the People. 26 Be it as it may, may, the the Court Court was was not presented with the unavailability of not presented witnesses as the basis of witnesses 27 27

28 28 for the dismissal, but rather new and iilrther new information was received and investigation was required further investigation

People v. Uncangco, Criminal Case Uncangco, Criminal Case No. No. CF0225-24 Decision and Decision Re. Defendant's Motion and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Page Page 7 of 8 1 in this case. case. Min. Entry (Jun. 10, 9:25:08 AM. The Court finds that the Defendant has 10, 2024) at 9:25:08 2 failed failed to sufficiently prejudice as demonstrate prejudice sufficiently demonstrate to his as to speedy trial his speedy rights and trial rights as to and as the People's to the 3 justification for their Motion to Dismiss. 4

5 CONCLUSION

6 the Defendant's For the above reasons, the DENIED. The Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is DENIED. Defendant's Motion

7 10, 2024. Court AFFIRMS its Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice issued on June 10, 8 of January, 2025. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of 9 9

10 10

11 11

12 HON OHABLE MARIA T. CENZON Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

15 15

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 'sehvlce SlllVICI! VIA VIA I:-ulAII. l!-MAIL aono•i•dgt that |1 acknowledge tnat an elecvomc elect,.on1t 22 Cony Coov o' o4 the the-Of-g~na» wasre ma,le-d o,,g,na• we?. ma-led to to

62 ,A PD /JC, T'D 23 23

24 24 Date.I/21 Date. In M AL fume. 1,-:/'1/>A. Tnne. f?`/'?&

/J//, #Med ~<'-/ {:i M,p l,k &/\ ~ 25 25 Depuxv Depury clerk clerk., Superior Superior Court Guam of Guam (oun of

26 26

People v. Uncangco, Uncangco, Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0225-24 CF0225-24 Decision Decision and and Order Re. Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Page Page 8 of8 of 8