People v. Ungacta

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE No. CF 0017-12 4 )

)

5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER )

6 MICHELLE T. UNGACTA )

7 )

Defendant. )

8

9 INTRODUCTION

10

II This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on March 6, 2013. The

12 People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney General Teri C. Tenorio. The 13 Defendant was represented by Attorney F. Randall Cunliffe. Having reviewed the 14 memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues the following decision, denying 15

16 Defendant's motion for her failure to comply with Rule 7.1(i) of the Local Rules of the

17 Superior Court of Guam. 18 BACKGROUND

19 On January 10, 2103, Defendant filed a paper entitled, Memorandum of Law in Support 20 of Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Decision of November 30, 2012. In it Defendant 21

22 requests that the court reconsider its November 30, 2012, decision. As part of its

23 reconsideration she requests that the People's indictment be dismissed for violating her 8 GCA 24 § 80.60 statutory right to a speedy trial. In support of this request Defendant argues that the 25 court analyzed her assertion of error under the wrong legal standard. She asserts that the court 26 applied a violation of a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial standard of review, as 27

28 opposed to one for the violation of a defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial.

Page 1 of4

The People oppose Defendant's request. On March 5, 2013, the People filed a paper 2 entitled, People's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of 3 Court's Decision and Order of November 30, 2012. In support of its paper the People argue 4 that Defendant's motion does not comply with the requirements of rule 7.l(i) of the Local 5

6 Rules of the Guam Superior Court. The People cite to the Guam Supreme Court's 2005,

7 People v. Gutierrez, decision and argue that Defendant's motion fails to meet the Court's 8 standard for reconsideration.

9 Defendant filed no reply paper in response to the People's opposition.

10 DISCUSSION

11

12 Defendant requests that this court reconsider its November 30, 2012, order. Motions 13 that request a court to reconsider a prior decision in a criminal matter are regulated by civil rule 14 7.l(i) of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Super. Ct. Guam G.R. 1.1. It 15 provides that, "[a] motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only 16

17 in accordance with the Guam Rules of Civil Procedures. No motion for reconsideration shall

18 in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the 19 original motion." On its face and by interpretation rule 7.l(i) requires that a reconsideration 20 motion first identifY or explain how the argument raised is new or novel. Abalos v. Cyfred, 21 Ltd., 2009 Guam 14 ~ 21.

22

23 Additionally the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure have, in criminal matters, been

24 interpreted to require that a court analyze whether: "1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 25 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially 26 different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise 27

28

Page2 of4

result." People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ~ 40. A court's failure to analyze these 2 issues constitutes an abuse of its discretion. !d.

3 In this case Defendant does not assert or argue how or whether her request to reconsider 4 contains arguments or assertions which are new or novel, are supported by: the court's 5

6 commission of clear error; a change m the intervening law; different evidence or

7 circumstances; or fact which would support a finding of manifest injustice. Mot. 1-3. Absent 8 this the court is unable to consider the Defendant's request. cf, Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 9 ~ 35. In order for this court to meaningfully review the Defendant's request she first, under the 10

appropriate standard, must "articulate [her] arguments in a way that allows this court to apply II

12 recognized rules of law." !d. It is not sufficient to assert or argue error and then leave it up to

13 the court to: identify the appropriate standard, elaborate and analyze the arguments, and search 14 for authority either to sustain or reject a position. !d.

15 While the court recognizes that a constitutional standard was inappropriately applied to 16

17 Defendant's assertion of a violation of her statutory right, it is not convinced that the error is

18 sufficient to support a finding of clear error as required by the Guam Supreme Court. This 19 issue, or other issues perhaps relevant under the standard for reconsideration, were not asserted 20 or explained by the Defendant. A reconsideration of the Court's prior order, under a clear error 21 standard raises additional legitimate issues of when the statutory speedy trial right commenced:

22

23 whether the good faith presumption discussed in Flores, applies to the People's superseding

24 indictments; whether a Defendant's failure to assert arguments of prosecutorial bad faith reset 25 the date of her statutory speedy trial rights. The court's further consideration of these issues 26 outside of their assertion and argument by the Parties introduces a level of advocacy that is 27

28 outside of the ideals of due process.

Page 3 of 4

CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant's request to reconsider. A 3 pretrial hearing on this matter is hereby set for J~ 311_; 2013, at...!.....,_;~~::::___-

4 1 ~.rn.

5

6

7 SO ORDERED, this -L-__;;;__dayof j~ 2013.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 of4