People v. Valintino

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case no. CF0592-1{}, , ;., '/ t "'-J '0/

4 ) ) 5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) re: Motion for Reconsideration 6 VALENS VALINTINO, ) 7 ) ) 8 Defendant. 9

10 INTRODUCTION

11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on April 24, 2012. 12 The People are represented by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Vasiliades. The Defendant 13 is represented by Assistant Public Defender Maria G. Fitzpatrick. After considering the matter 14 presented, the Court now issues the following decision and order denying the Defendant's 15

16 motion for reconsideration.

17 BACKGROUND 18 On November 17, 2011, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for diversion. The 19 Court held that given the description of the injuries and the nature of the Defendant's conduct 20 there was sufficient evidence to support the assertion that the victim suffered severe or intense 21

22 physical pain sufficient to constitute serious bodily injury. Thus, the Court found that the

23 Defendant was statutorily ineligible for diversion. 24 On March 19,2012, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court 25 to allow him to enter the Diversion program. Defendant argues that (1) there was no evidence 26

27 to support the Court's finding that the victim was hit with a belt in the face; (2) Diversion has

28 been offered in similar cases where parents are accused of inappropriate discipline of a child;

Page 1 of4 (3) a change in circumstance because there is evidence suggesting the Defendant is amenable to 2 treatment; and (4) that he has suffered enough punishment in this case. 3 DISCUSSION 4

Criminal motions to reconsider are permitted and regulated by Rule 7.1(i) of the Local 5

6 Rules of The Superior Court of Guam, Civil Rules. l Super. Ct. Guam Rules 1.1 and 7.1 (i)

7 (2008). Rule 7.1 provides, 8 A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only in 9 accordance with the Guam Rules of Civil Procedures. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in 10 support of or in opposition to the original motion. 11 ld. at 7.1(i). In a 2005 criminal case the, Guam Supreme Court, citing a holding from a 12 previous civil case, explained that "'[t]his court has adopted three prongs to justify 13

14 reconsideration: where the trial court: (1) is presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear

15 error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change In 16 controlling law.'" People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19, ~41 citing, Petition of 17 Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19, ~ 38. 18 The weight of authority holds that revisiting issues already addressed and advancing 19

20 arguments which were otherwise available for presentation is not the purpose of a motion for

21 reconsideration in the criminal context. "A motion for reconsideration is not intended to be a 22 vehicle for a party dissatisfied with a court's ruling to advance new theories that the movant 23 failed to advance in connection with the underlying motion, nor to secure a rehearing on the 24

25 merits with regard to issues already decided." u.s. v. Demosthene, 326 F.Supp.2d 531, 534 26 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Laguana v. lshizaki, 2006 WL 156955, pA (D. Guam 2006)(where movant's

28 I Rule 1.\ of the same rules applies the local rules to the criminal actions. Super. Ct. Guam Rule 1.1 (2008).

Page 2 of4 arguments have all been considered and resolved, "further consideration is barred by the 'law 2 of the case doctrine"'); People v. Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 ,-r17 (reconsideration of legal issues 3 already decided in an earlier ruling absent an intervening change in law or circumstance 4 constitutes an abuse of discretion). 5

6 Through its contentions that the Court has made errors of judgment concerning fact and

7 law, the Defendant, for the most part, reiterates the original issues raised at previous hearings. 8 By re-presenting mostly the same arguments, the Defendant persists in attempts to challenge 9 the correctness of the Court's reasoning. Such arguments are properly brought on direct appeal, JO but do not justifY overturning a previously binding decision. See, e.g. People v. Oralio, 2006 11 Guam 8 ,-r9 (motion that alleges no more than legal error and merely reiterates the arguments as 12

13 previously decided by the same court does not "warrant a departure from that decision"). The

14 Defendant has also not brought forward any arguments that were not available for presentation 15 at the initial hearing. 16 Further, Defendant asserts that the Court erred in its previous decision when it made a 17 finding that the Defendant hit the victim with a belt on his face. Defendant argues there is no 18 evidence to support this finding. The Court disagrees because the Declaration attached to the 19

20 Magistrate's Complaint provides ample evidence to support a finding that the victim was

21 repeatedly struck with a belt. 22 Defendant also claims a change of circumstances because the Defendant has shown to 23 be amenable to treatment. The Court however does not find this to be a change of circumstance. 24

25 Defendant's other arguments brought forward in his motion do not warrant reconsideration by

26 the Court because the arguments do not fall within any of the three prongs to justify 27 reconsideration. 28

Page 3 of4 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the Defendant's motion for reconsideration. 3

4 Further Proceedings shall be held on ~ /? ")J I k I at 'l: tn "----' .

~ 5

6 SO ORDERED, thisd- <] day of 2012.

10 BLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 11

Page 4 of4