People v. Wolford

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: CF0200-25
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

F Eii 1L-I t .L" .i- ..~Lrl' i J l CLER!( CL;;F 2KOF OFCOURT CQUT 2z ZQ25 HOVI 313PH 2025 t!OV PH 3: I I 3

SUPEREOR CGURT SUPERiOR COURT 4 OFGUAMlt/ F GUAM/ 5 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6

7 PEOPLE OF OF GUAM, GUAM, 8 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0200-25

9 vs. DECISION DECISION AND ORDER 10 10

l11l RALPH RALPH THOMAS WOLFORD, 12 12 Defendant. 13 13 INTRODUCTION 14

This matter matter is before before the the Honorable Honorable Vernon P. P. Perez Perez on on Defendant Defendant Ralph Ralph Thomas Thomas 15 15 Wolford's Walford's ("Defendant") Motion to ("Defendant") Motion to Sever Sever Charges Charges for for Purposes Purposesof of Trial Trial ("Motion ("Motion to to 16 16

Sever"). Assistant AssistantAttorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralChristine ChristineS.S.Tenorio Tenoriorepresents represents the the People People of ofGuam Guam ("the 17

Government") andAssistant Government") and AssistantPublic PublicDefender DefenderMary MaryHill Hill represents representsDefendant. Defendant. Having reviewed 18

the the pleadings, the arguments pleadings, the presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow now issues issues the the following following 19 19 Decision Decision and and Order. 20

BACKGROUND 21

Defendant Defendant is charged with one charged with one count countof of Third Third Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Conduct (As Sexual Conduct (As a 22

Second Degree Felony) Second Degree Felony) and and one one count count of of Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Degree Criminal Conduct (As Sexual Conduct (As a 23 23 Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Indictment, (Indictment, Mar. 31,l, 2025). 2025). The The First First Charge Charge of Third Third Degree Criminal Sexual Sexual 24 24 Conduct (As (As aa Second Second Degree Degree Felony) Felony) alleges alleges Defendant Defendant engaged engaged in in sexual sexual penetration penetration with 25

M.A. M.A.(DOB: (DOB:07/08/2003) 07/08/2003) on or about aboutMarch March 14, 14,2024. 2024. Id. Id The The Second Second Charge of Fourth Degree 26 26

Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct Conduct (As (AsaaMisdemeanor) Misdemeanor) alleges alleges Defendant Defendant engaged engaged in sexual with sexual contact with 27 27

A,M. (DOB: A.M. (DOB:05/24/2003) 05/24/2003) on or about aboutFebruary February 17, 17,2025. 2025.Id. Id 28

People People v. Wolford Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and Order and Order

Page Pagel1of6 off l On August 25, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendant filed filed the instant Motion, Motion, moving movingto to sever sever the the charges into 2 2 two separate trials. On separate trials. On September 8, 2025, September 8, 2025,the theGovernment Governmentfiled tiledits itsOpposition. Opposition. No Reply was

3 filed. filed.

4 On September September 29, 2025, the Court placed the matter under advisement without without further further 5 argument argument from the parties. See See CR1.1 CR!. I Form Form 3, 3, Sept. Sept. 29, 2025. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Guam law, two or more offenses may be charged charged in the same indictment indictment "if "if the 8 offenses charged are of of the same same or or similar similar character character or based on the same same act act or or transaction transaction or or 9 on two or or more more acts acts or transactions occurring occurring together together or or constituting constitutingparts parts of ofaacommon common scheme scheme 10 IO or or plan." plan." 88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§55.35. 55.35. l1 Severance Severance may may be be appropriate, however: appropriate, however: l11l IfIf ititappears appears that that aa defendant defendant oror the government isis prejudiced the government prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of of offenses offenses or or of defendants in an defendants in an indictment indictmentor orinformation information oror by by such suchjoinder jointer for 12 trial together, together, the the court may may order anan election election or or separate separate trials of of counts, counts, grant a 13 severance severance of of defendants defendantsor orprovide provide whatever whateverother otherrelief reliefjustice justice requires. 14 8 8 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 65.25. 65.25. 22 15 In In this this case, Defendant sets forth case, Defendant forth that that the the charges should be severed severed because because"[t]here "[t]here exists 16 no facial factualnexus nexusororwitnesses witnesses inin common common between between the the two charges," he will be charges," he be unfairly unfairly 17 prejudiced, and each prejudiced, and each charge chargewill will involve involve different defenses. defenses. (Mot. (Mot. Sever Sever at at 2, 2, Aug. Aug. 25, 25, 2025). 2025). 18 The Government opposes, opposes, arguing arguing that that both both allegations allegations "involve "involve criminal criminalsexual sexualconduct conduct charges, charges, 19 occurred within one one year of ofeach each other, and at at the the same sameplace." place." (Opp'n (Opp'n at 4, Sept. 8, 2025). Sept. 8, 2025). The 20 20

21 1 1 Section 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Federal Rules Rules of of Criminal Criminal Procedure, which provides: Procedure, which provides: 22 22 (a) Joiner (a) JoinderofofOffenses. Offenses.The Theindictment oror indictment information may infonnation charge may separate counts defendantininseparate chargea adefendant counts with 22 or or more more offenses offenses ififthe the offenses offenses charged charged -- whether whether felonies felonies or misdemeanors misdemeanors or or both both-- are are 23 of ofthe the same same or or similar similarcharacter, character, oror are are based based onon the the same same act or transaction, transaction, or are connected with connected with or constitute parts pans of aa common scheme scheme or or plan. 24 24 Fed. R. Crim. P. Fed. R. 8. P. 8. 25 z2 Section Section65.35 65.35 isis substantially substantially similar similar to to Rule Rule 14 14 of ofthe the Federal Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: Procedure, which 26 26 IfIfthe the jointer joinderofofoffenses offensesorordefendants defendants inin an an indictment, anan information, or a consolidation consolidation for for trial trial appears appears to to prejudice prejudice a defendant defendant or or the government, government, the court may order separate trials of counts, separate trials 27 27 sever defendants'trials, sever the defendants' trials, or or provide provide any other other relief relief that that justice requires. requires. ' 28 ZN Fed. R. Crim. P. Fed. R. 14(a). P. 14(a).

People People v. v. Wolford Case No. No. CF0200-25 Decision and Decision and Order Order

Page Z of Page2of6 l Government sets sets forth forth that "[b]oth that "[b ]oth victims victims worked workedatatthe theestablishment establishment at at the the same same time, time, and and 2 there appears to there appears to be the same supervisor that also worked at that also at the establishment establishment during during both times 3 in question." question." Id IdThe Government The Mother Government furtherargues arguesthat that the the testimony testimony "of "ofboth both adults adults would be 4 necessary to establish the work necessary to work culture culture at at the establishment and to establishment and to describe the Defendant as as aa 5 manager." manager." Id at at 5. 5. 6 "[T]he "[T]he primary primarypurpose purpose of ofRule Rule 8(a) jointer isistotoensure 8(a) joinder ensure that that a giventransaction need only need only 7 7 be proved once once.. .. Where .... Where there there is substantial overlap in evidence between substantial overlap betweentwo twooffenses, offenses,joinder jointer

8 eliminates the need need to to prove substantially the same evidence twice same evidence twice over, over, thus thus realizing realizing precisely

9 the kind of economy envisagedby economy envisaged byRule Rule8(a)." 8(a)." Howerton v. United United States, States, 964 A.2d 1282, 1282, 1292 1292 10 (D.C. 2009) (citations, internal quotation quotation marks, and alterations alterations omitted). omitted). See See also also United UnitedStates Stales II v. Tee/y, v. Teny, 911 F.2d 272,276 911 F.2d 272, 276(9th (9thCir. Cir. 1990) 1990)("When ("When ... .. joined joined offenses offenses are are not not connected connected and and are 12 not provable by the same evidence,joinder same evidence, jointer isis improper."). improper."). Rule Rule 8(a) 8(a) is is "construed broadly in "construed broadly 13 favor of initial favor jointer." United initial joinder." United States Walser, 33 F.3d v. Walker, States v. F.3d 380, 385 (I 380, 385 (lath Ith Cir. Cir. 1993) 1993) (citation (citation 14 omitted). omitted). 15 15 We consider consider itit appropriate appropriate toto consider considerfactors factorssuch such asas the the elements of ofthe the statutory statutory offenses, offenses, the the temporal proximity of ofthe the acts, the the likelihood likelihood and extentofevidentiary of evidentiary 16 overlap, the the physical location locationofofthe theacts, acts,the the modus modus operandi operandi of ofthe the crimes, crimes, and and the 17 identity identity of of the the victims victims ininassessing assessing whether whether an an indictment indictment meetsmeets the the "same "same or 18 similar character" character"prong prongof of Rule Rule 8(a). The weight weight given given toto aa particular factor will particular factor will depend on thethe specific specific context contextof ofthe thecase case and and the allegations allegations in in the the indictment. indictment. But 19 the the bottom bottom line is is that that the the similar similar character character of of the the joined offenses offenses should should be 20 20 ascertainable-either ascertainable-eitherreadilyreadilyapparent reasonablyinferred-from apparent or reasonably inferred-from the the face of ofthe the indictment. indictment. 21 United United States States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 578 578 (9th (9th Cir. Cir. 2007). 2007). 22 22 Here, although the the Indictment Indictment identifies two separate separate victims, the the Court Court finds finds that that the the 23 23 charges are properly charges are properly joined. The charges are similar charges are similar in nacre: nature: Defendant Defendant is is accused accused of of 24 24 committing committing sexual sexual assault assault against adult adultvictims victims while while he he was working working as as a manager at atTGI TGI Fridays 25 in Tumon. of. (Deal. (Deel. ofofChristine Christine S. S. Tenorio, Tenorio, Magistrate's Comal., Mar. Magistrate's Comp!., Mar. 22, 22, 2025). 2025). The alleged alleged 26 26 events occurred roughly eleven eleven months months apart apart (March (March 2024 2024 and and February 2025). Further, February 2025). Further, as as the the 27 Government sets forth, forth, even ififthe the Court Court were to to sever sever the the counts as to counts as to each alleged alleged victim, each each 28

People v. v. Wolford Case No. CF0200-25 Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and Order Order

Page Page 3 of6 l victim may may still still testify testify atat the the other's other'ssevered severed trial trialpursuant pursuant to to Rule 413. 3 See, Rule413.3 See, e.g., e.g., People People v. v. 2 Gaines, 856 Gaines, 856 N.W.2d 222, 222, 236 (Mich. (Mich. 2014) 2014) ("Because ("Becausedefendant's defendant's actions actions against against each each victim 3

4 3 Although Although thethe Court Court does not have have aa Rule Rule 413 413 Motion before it as the Motion before charges are the charges currently joined, are currently joined, the theCourt Court will will 5 briefly address the briefly address the issue to explain why the Government why the would be Government would be able able ro to call call each each victim victimtoto testify testify as as aa witness witness atat the other's trial trial if the the chargers chargerswere weresevered. severed. Further, Further, while while Defendant Defendant argues arguesaajoint jointtrial trial"would "would allow allow forfor improper 6 character evidence evidence in in violation violation of Rule 404(b),"see ofRule404(b)," seeMot. Mot.Sever at 2, the Severate, the Court Court applies a RuleRule 413 413 analysis analysis for for criminal criminal sexual conduct cases. sexual Guam's Rule cases. Guam's Rule 413 413 isis substantially substantially similar similar to to the Federal Federal Rules Rules of Evidence Evidence 413, which was 7 enacted by Congress as a fundamental enacted fundamental exception exception toto Rule 404(b). People Peoplev,v.Chisel, Chine/,2013 2013Guam Guam 2424 ,r,r 21-22, 1111 21-22. ItsIts 8 purpose "was to to supersedeRule Rule 404(b) 's prohibition on evidence oflike conduct showing propensity in sexual assault 404(b)'s prohibition on evidence of like conduct showing propensity in sexual assault cases." Id 'I[ Idatat1121. Forevidence For admissibleunder be admissible evidencetotobe underRule Rule413, 413, the the following followingelements elementsmustmust bebe met: met: 9 the defendant First, the defendant in the the present present case case must must be be accused accused of of sexual sexual assault. Second, the assault. Second, the evidence 10 IO of the proffered must be evidence of the defendant's defendant's commission commission of ofanother another past past act act of of sexual sexual assault. assault. Third, the past act must be relevant, Third, the relevant, meaning that that its its existence existence must make make any fact at at issue issue more more or II less probable than than if if such evidence were excluded. excluded,

12 12 Chine/, 2013 ChineL Guam 2411 2013 Guam 241[ 25 (internal (internal citations omitted). The first omitted). The first and and second second prongs prongs are are clearly clearly met met as as Defendant is of committing accused of committing sexual sexual assault against both assault against both victims. victims. The The third prong isis also third prong alsomet met as as the the evidence evidence is is relevant relevant 13 13 because it would present evidence of present evidence of past past criminal criminal sexual sexual conduct which is is usually usually probative probative of ofa current allegation of criminal of criminal sexual sexual conduct. See id conduct. See ,r 28 (citing Doe ex rel. id atat 1128 rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. v. Glanzer, 232F.3d Glarier, 232 F.3d1258, 1258, 1268 1268 (9th (9th 14 14 Cir. 2000)) Cir. 2000)) ("it ("it is is generally generally accepted accepted that that a defendant defendant with with a propensity propensity to to commit acts similar to those similar to those charged is more more likely likely to to have have committed committed the the act than another and than another andtherefore thereforesuch suchevidence evidenceisisrelevant."). relevant.").Additionally, Additionally, Rule Rule 15 15 413 simply 413 simply states "another offense states "another offense or offenses offenses of criminal sexual conduct." conduct." It It does does not not contain contain any any "inherent "inherent 16 limitation." See, e.g., chronological limitation," e.g., U»1itedSIates v. Sioux, United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d F.3d 1241 1241 (9th (9th Cir. 2004) ("we ("we have have little littledoubt doubt that that the plain language language of of the the rule rule permits permits admission admission ofofsubsequent subsequent acts acts evidence evidence to to the the same same extent extent itit permits permits the the 17 introduction introduction of ofevidence evidence tending tending to to demonstrate prior prior acts acts of of sexual sexual misconduct."). misconduct."). The The Court Court then then turns to aRule Rule 403 analysis. analysis. See See People Peoplev. v. Wesen, Wesen, 2022 Guam 18 ,r ("even Guam 181147 ("even when evidence 18 qualifies under under GRE 413, Chine/ GRE 413, Chine/ requires courts to conduct a GRE 403 analysis GRE 403 analysis using using framework framework as as provided in 19 19 States v.v. LeMay"). United States The Court LeMmy"). The evaluates: "(1) Court evaluates: "(!) the of the the similarity of the prior prior acts acts to to the the acts acts charged, charged; (2) the in time closeness in time of ofthe the prior prior acts acts to to the the acts acts charged, frequency of charged; (3) the frequency ofthe the prior prior acts, acts; (4) the the presence presenceor or lack lack of of 20 20 intervening circumstances, intervening circumstances; and (5) the the necessity necessity of the the evidence beyond the the testimonies testimonies already already offered at trial." trial." Chine/, 2013 Guam 24 ,ri139 (citing Chisel, (citing United United States States v. v. LeMmy, leMay, 260 260 F.3d 1018, 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 1028 (9th Cir. 2001)). 2001)). The Court Court does 21 not have not have to to specifically address each factor, but but must must conduct a searching inquiry. inquiry. Chisel, Chine/, 2013 2013 Guam 24 ii,r 39 Guam 24 39 22 (stating that the LeMmy (stating leMay factors are not exhaustive exhaustive or or mandatory mandatory and and that the the trial trial courts may consider additional additional factors or may may ignore ignore any any of ofthe the factors factors that that are irrelevant). 23 23 In In evaluating evaluating the the factors, the Court notes factors, the the following: Defendant notes the Defendant is accused accused of of committing committing sexual sexual penetration penetration and sexual contact against the victims victims roughly roughlyeleven eleven(l(11) 1) months months apart apart and and at at the same location, TGI same location, TGI 24 24 Fridays Fridays in in Tum of. As Tumon. Asnoted notedearlier, earlier,"[b]oth "[b]othvictims victimsworked worked thestablishment the at at establishmentatathe thesame sametime, time, and and there there appears that also to be the same supervisor that also worked at the the establishment establishment during during both both times timesin in question." (Opp'n at question." (Opp'n at 4). The 25 Government sets Government sets forth that the testimony that the testimony of of both both victims victims "would be necessary "would be necessary to to establish establish the the work culture culture at at the the 26 establishment and to to describe describe Defendant Defendant as a manager. manager. Id. at 5. "Prior at 5. "Prioracts acts evidence evidence need need not absolutely necessa,y not be absolutely necessary to the prosecution's prosecution's case case in order order to to be be introduced; introduced, ititmust mustsimply simplybe behelpful helpfulor orpractically practically necessa,y." neeessa/y." leMay, LeMan, 260 260 27 27 F.3d F.3d at 1029 (emphasis in 1029 (emphasis original). Thus, in original). Thus,the the Court Courtfinds findsthat that M.A. M.A.(DOB: (DOB:07/08/2003) 07/08/2003) would wouldbe be able able to to testify testify as the acts to the acts committed committed against against her her by by Defendant Defendant in in trial trial for A.M. (DOB:05/24/2003) A.M. (DOB: 05/24/2003) and and vice viceversa versaas as the the acts acts meet meet 28 the threshold requirements requirements of of Rule Rule 413 and Rule Rule 403.

People People v. Wolford Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and and Order Order

Page 4 of6 Page 1 were admissible admissible in each case pursuanttoto[Michigan's case pursuant [Michigan's analogous analogousRule Rule 413], 413], each each victim victim would

2 have been required have been to testify required to testify in in each each trial trial if if the the cases were tried cases were separately.Joinder tried separately. Joiner offered offered 3 3 convenience convenience to to the the victims, victims,who whohad hadalready alreadysuffered sufferedharassment harassment in in their their communities communities as as aa result 4 of of these cases."). these cases."). 5 Even ififoffenses offenses are are properly properly joined, joined, the the Court Court may may grant severance of grant severance of the the offenses offenses if

6 Defendant Defendant isis prejudiced prejudicedby by such suchjoinder. jointer. See United United States States v. Whitworth, Whitworth, 856 856 F.2d 1268, 1268, 1277 1277 7 7 (9th Cir. 1988) 1988) (requiring aa showing that "jointer was that "joinder was so so manifestly manifestly prejudicial prejudicial that that it outweighed 8 the dominant concern the dominant concernwith withjudicial judicial economy and and compelled compelled exercise of ofthe the court's court's discretion to 9 sever."). sever."). "The "Theprime primeconsideration considerationinindetermining determiningwhether whether or or not not to to grant grant aa severance severance is is the the o 10 possibility of ofprejudice prejudice to to the the defendant defendant in in conducting conducting his his defense. defense. Weighing the the danger danger of 11 confusion and undue confusion and undue cumulative cumulativeinference inferenceisis aa matter matter for for the the trial trial judge within within his his sound sound 12 discretion." discretion." Johnson v. United United States, States, 356 F.2d 680, 680, 682 682 (8th Cir. Cir. 1966), cert. cert. denied, denied, 385 385 U.S. 13 857 (1966). (1966). "It "Itisisnot notenough enough simply simply to to show show that suchjoinder makes that suchjoinder makesititmore moredifficult difficult to to defend." defend."

14 Id Id (citations (citations omitted). omitted). 15 15 Here, Here, Defendant Defendant argues he will argues that he will be be prejudiced because "the jury because "the jury would not be able to

16 16 compartmentalize evidence concerning compartmentalize evidence concerning charge charge one one from from evidence concerning concerning charge charge two" two" and

17 there "is a strong likelihood likelihood and and danger danger that the jury would would assume [he] is guilty assume [he] guilty on on one one charge charge rs 18 based on evidence based on evidenceused usedfor foranother." another." (Mot. Sever Sever at 2). 2). The The Court Court acknowledges acknowledges Defendant's 19 I argument that he argument that he may may suffer suffer some some risk risk of prejudice ififthe the charges charges are not severed, however, it is severed, however, 20 20 not not convinced convinced at at this time time that such prejudice prejudice rises to to aalevel level requiring requiring severance. See, Ag., United See, e.g., United

21 States v. v. Begun, Begun, 446 F.2d F.2d 32, 33 33 (9th Cir. 1971) 1971) ("an ("an important important factor in in determining determining whether whether Z2 22 exists is prejudice exists whether the is whether the evidence evidence of of one one of ofthe the crimes crimes would would be be admissible admissible in in aa separate separate 23 23 trial for for the the other crime. IfIfthe theanswer answer is is affirmative, affirmative, the the jointer joinderofofoffenses, offenses,ininmost mostinstances, instances, 24 will not not be prejudicial."). prejudicial."). "Even "Evenwhere wherethere there may may be some some risk risk of of prejudice, prejudice, if if the the possibility possibility of of 25 prejudice may be cured by by aa cautionary cautionary instruction instruction severance severance is not required." required." United United Slates States v. v. 26 26 Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 380, 385 385(11th (l ltd Cir. Cir. 1993) l993) (citation and quotation marks omitted). omitted). The Court Court finds 27 27 the use that the useof of limiting limiting instructions will prevent prevent the jury's verdict the jury's verdicton on any any one one charge charge to affect affect the 28

People People v.v. Wolford Wowed Case No. CF0200-25 Case No. CFOZ00-25 Decision Decision and Order Order

Page Page 5 of66 l jury's verdict jury's verdict on any other other charge. "Juries "Juries are are presumed presumed to to follow follow their their instructions." Zafiro v. 22 States, 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993) (citation omitted). United States,

3 3 Defendant also argues Defendant also argues that he will will be be prejudiced because his prejudiced because "rights under the his "rights Fifth the Fifth 4 Amendment Amendment to to the the United United States States Constitution Constitution would would likely likely be be jeopardized by a failure to sever 55 these charges." charges." (Mot. (Mot. Sever Sever at at 2). Defendant asserts that he would be prejudiced if "he wished 2). Defendant 6 involved in charge one but not the events involved in charge two." to testify concerning the events involved

77 Id. at2-3. at 2-3.The TheGovemrnent Governmentargues arguesthat thatDefendant Defendanthas madeaasufficient notmade hasnot showing of sufficient showing prejudice ofprejudice

8 8 sentence hypothetical based on a "one sentence hypothetical assertion." (Opp'n atat 5). assertion." (Opp'n TheCourt 5). The inclined to Courtisisinclined agree. to agree. g 9 of proving joinder Defendant has "the burden of of the jointer of charges was the charges prejudicial in confounding his was prejudicial 10 10 defense by compromising compromising his his privilege privilege against against self-incrimination." P.2d self-incrimination." State v. Martin, 926 P.2d 11 1380, 1380, 1388 (Mont. 1996). 1388 (Mont. 1996). "A defendant defendant advancing advancing such a theory must make theory must convincing make aa convincing 12 12 showing that that he he has both both important concerning one count and the strong need to give concerning important testimony to 13 13 to refrain from testifying refrain from testifying on the other." 1026 (7th 1018, 1026 other." United States v. Kelly, 99 F.4th 1018, Cir. (7th Cir. 14 2024), cert. cert. denied, denied, 145 S. Ct. 276 (2024) (2024) (citation (citation omitted). Defendant Defendant has has not identified what not identified 15 testimony he would give about one alleged victim nor why he would have a strong need not to alleged victim 16 16 testify about the testify about the other. other. AA"one "onesentence sentenceassertion assertion that that[Defendant's] ptivilege against [Defendant's] privilege self- against self- 17 incrimination would be incrimination would be compromised compromised isis insufficient insufficient to to prove prove the of this existence of the existence of this type of 18 prejudice." Martin, Martin, 926 P.2d at at 1388. 1388. Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court denies Defendant's to Sever. Motion to Defendant's Motion 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the Court Court hereby hereby DENIES DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion to to Sever. Sever. 21 December 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Parties shall return for a Pre-Trial Conference on December 22 22 ....l1 23 IT IS SO ORDERED this II◊ day of 23" of November, 2025.

24 SERVI VIA SERVICE VI E•MAIL A E-MAIL II acknowledge acknowledge that that an an electronic 25 25 copy or the copy of tho original w.15 was a-mailed to: .1

HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ PEREZ 26 n, pm. Judge, Superior Superior Court of Guam 27 27 \m\'r1 ~. . \$PM \~h\\';o?~,j.\% D W\ `l1me Time

28 28 Hannah HannahG. G.E1more(A/ ElmorefA_/ Deputy Clel1<, Superior Court ol Guam

People People v. v. Wolford Case No. No CF0200-25 CF0200-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 6 of of6