Quintanilla v. Borja, as Warden of Dep't of Corr.

Opinion

'f'l'tED

:,UPER!OR COURT

Gl'GUAM

1025 KAR 2!i P'r1 ~• 29

2 CLERK Of COUilT 3 3y:,_ _- - 1 ~ - - -

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA; [ 5

6 ELI CHARFAUROS QUINTANILLA, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. SP0162-24 7 Petitioner,

8 V.

9 DECISION AND ORDER

ALLEN BORJA, in his capacity as Warden of lO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS the Department of Corrections, ALBERTO C.

11 LAMORENA III, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam, 12 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LETA 13 J. WOMACK, and ALTERNATE PUBLIC DEFENDER PETER J. SANTOS, 14 Respondents.

15

16

17 INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas for review of Petitioner Eli 19 Charfauros Quintanilla's ("Petitioner'') February 18, 2025 Response. The Response was filed 20 pursuant to the Court's January 30, 2025 Order to amend Petitioner's Petition for Writ of 21

22 Habeas Corpus ("Petition") to comply with the procedural requirements of 8 GCA § 135.14 by

23 February 28, 2025. Petitioner Eli Charfauros Quintanilla ("Petitioner") is pro se. Upon review 24 of the Response, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

25 BACKGROUND

26 Petitioner brought the Petition on November 18, 2024, based on events in Criminal Case 27

28 No. CF0298-23, in which Petitioner is the Defendant. Petitioner was indicted on charges of

SP0162-24, Eli Charfauros Quintanilla v. Allen Borja, et al.

Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (as a 2nd Degree Felony) and Possession of a Schedule II

2 Controlled Substance (as a 3rd Degree Felony) following a traffic stop and arrest on April 28,

3 2023. The stop was initiated by Guam Police Department ("GPD") Officer Christopher 4 Champion after observing Petitioner driving with defective headlights and an expired 5 registration tag. After making the stop, Officer Champion ran a search on the vehicle and found 6

that it was reported stolen. Officer Champion then arrested Petitioner, after which he searched 7

8 the vehicle and discovered a bag containing Petitioner's identification and what he suspected

9 was methamphetamine. 10 On April 29, 2023, the Honorable Jonathan R. Quan placed Petitioner under house arrest

as part of a pre-trial conditional release. On June 15, 2023, Probation filed a violation report, 12

13 stating that Petitioner had failed to abide by the house arrest order. On July 5, 2023, an

14 arraignment hearing was held, at which Petitioner did not appear. On July 7, 2023, the

15 Honorable Benjamin C. Sison issued a Bench Warrant for Petitioner's arrest.

16 On May 16, 2024, Petitioner was arrested by Superior Court marshals and appeared for a 17 return of warrant hearing before Magistrate Sison, who committed Petitioner to the Department 18

19 of Corrections ("DOC"). On June 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a "motion to dismiss," alleging that

20 Officer Champion's April 28, 2023 search was improper and that Petitioner's later arrest on 21 May 16, 2024 was conducted "without being served a warrant." On August 9, 2024, the 22 Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III held a hearing on Petitioner's "motion to dismiss," which 23 Presiding Judge Lamorena found was actually a Motion to Suppress.

24

25 On October 7, 2024, Presiding Judge Lamorena issued a Decision and Order denying the

26 Motion to Suppress, finding that Officer Champion's search was legal and that Petitioner was 27 properly arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant.

28

Page 2 of7

SP0162-24, Eli Charfauros Quintanilla v. Allen Borja, et al.

On November 18, 2024, Petitioner filed this Petition for Habeas Corpus, alleging or re-

2 alleging the following:

3 1) Officer Champion allegedly arrested Petitioner on April 28, 2023 pursuant to an 4 unreasonable and improper search and seizure;

5 2) Petitioner was allegedly arrested by Superior Court marshals without warrant;

6 3) Petitioner was brought before Magistrate Quan for arraignment on June 10, 2024, 7

8 "twenty-five (25) days from his arrest without warrant previously mentioned";

9 4) Petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court on or around August 10 2, 2024, alleging all of the above and claiming that his pretrial confinement had 11 violated his right to due process.

12

13 5) On or around August 9, 2024, "during yet another dismissal hearing ordered by

14 Judge Lamorena, A BENCH TRIAL[sic] was held rather than what was scheduled to

15 be a dismissal hearing concerning the pro-se[sic] motion ... filed on 06/12/24." Pet., 16 at 3. Petitioner gives no reason as to why he believed that the hearing on his "motion 17 to dismiss" was a bench trial.

18

19 6) Petitioner asserts that he was awaiting a verdict of said "bench trial" above and

20 alleges that Judge Lamorena left the bench and never returned to issue a verdict, 21 allegedly leaving Petitioner "without a scheduled hearing for the verdict, and without 22 due process oflaw, life, liberty, or property, nor a fair trial." Id., at 4.

23 On January 30, 2025, the Court issued its Order stating that Petitioner had not complied 24

25 with the procedural requirements to file an application for writ of habeas corpus under 8 GCA §

26 135.14. Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to verify the application, that 27

28

Page3 of7

SP0162-24, Eli Charfauros Quintanilla v. Allen Bmja, et al.

Petitioner had not sufficiently provided prior application information, and that no service had

2 been provided to the Attorney General pursuant to statute.

J On February I 8, 2025, Petitioner filed the Response, argumg that he had met the 4 verification and prior application infonnation requirements, and did not deny that he had not 5 provided notice to the Attorney General, but only mentioned briefly that "the Attorney General 6

is a respondent" before requesting appointment of counsel to litigate the Petition. Regarding the 7

8 verification requirement, Petitioner argues at the beginning of his Response that he "attested

9 under penalty of perjury all infonnation communicated to be true and correct, signed and 10 dated." Resp., at 1. Regarding the prior application requirement, Petitioner argues that he had 11 "applied all corresponding case numbers. Representing all prior applications regarding the same 12

13 unlawful detention or restraint, and As information." Id., at 2 (sic).

14 DISCUSSION 15 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on the above allegations, and Petitioner 17 argues in his response that he has fulfilled the verification and prior application requirements of 18

19 8 GCA § 135.14. Even if the Court were to accept Petitioner's argument and grant leniency

20 regarding the two above requirements on the basis that he is prose, Petitioner still has not given 21 sufficient indication that he has complied with the notice requirement by February 28, 2025 as 22 ordered by the Court.

23 Guam law provides that "[e]very person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his 24

25 liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the

26 cause of such imprisonment or restraint." 8 GCA § 135.10. The law further provides that 27

28

Page4of7

SP0162-24, Eli Charfauros Quintanilla v. Alien Borja, et al.

[e]very application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be verified, and shall state whether any prior application has been made for a 2 writ in regard to the same detention or restraint complained of in the application, and if any such prior application has been made the 3 latter application shall contain a brief statement of all proceedings had therein, to and including the final order made therein, on 4 appeal or otherwise. Whenever the person applying for a writ of 5 habeas corpus is held in custody or restraint by any officer of this Territory or by any peace officer of this Territory, a copy of the 6 application for such writ shall in all cases be served upon the Attorney General at least 24 hours before the time at which said 7 writ is made returnable and no application for such writ can heard 8 without proof of such service in cases where such service is required."

9 Id. § 135.14.

Upon the Court's review, the Petition fails both procedurally and substantively.

II Procedurally, the Court finds that Petitioner has not provided sufficient proof that he has served 12 the Attorney General with a copy of the Petition. 8 GCA § 135.14 provides that a copy of the 13

14 Petition "shall in all cases be served upon the Attorney General at least 24 hours before the time

15 at which said writ is made returnable and no application for such writ can be heard without

16 proof of such service in cases where such service is required." Petitioner seems to argue that the 17 Office of the Attorney General was given notice because it is listed as a respondent to the 18 Petition. However, that is not service, nor does it provide proof of such. Thus, the Court cannot 19

20 even begin its analysis of this matter because no proof of such service has been provided.

21 Substantively, even if the Court were to hear the petition, Petitioner has provided no 22 legal support for his allegations but instead seems to merely seek a second bite of the apple by 23 largely repeating to the Court his previously failed arguments made before Presiding Judge 24 Larnorena, and then alleging without evidence that Presiding Judge Lamorena did not properly 25

26 perform his duties. Moreover, as he did before Presiding Judge Lamorena, Petitioner still does

27 not provide any explanation, legal or otherwise, as to why Officer Champion's search was 28 allegedly improper, or how his arrest is "warrantless" when it is based on a documented

Page5of7

SP0162-24, Eli Charfauros Quintanilla v. Allen Borja, et al.

outstanding warrant, or why a hearing on his improperly captioned motion would be considered

2 a "bench trial" at which Presiding Judge Lamorena was required to rule on a verdict.

3 Regarding the allegedly illegal stop, the record shows that Officer Champion initiated 4 his stop of Petitioner's vehicle after observing the vehicle had defective headlights and an 5 expired registration." CF0298-23, People v. Quintanilla, Hearing Tr., at 11 :29:00-11 :31 :00 6 (Aug. 9, 2024). Officer Champion detennined, after searching the GPD stolen vehicle database, 7

8 that Petitioner's vehicle was reported stolen. Id. at 11:35:30. This gave him probable cause to

9 believe Petitioner had stolen the vehicle, legally justifying the arrest of Petitioner. "[P]robable 10 cause exists where under the totality of the circumstances known to the officer, a prudent person II would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the suspect had committed or was 12

13 committing a crime." U.S. v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624, 629-30 (9th Cir. 2009). While it is true that

14 Officer Champion conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle and Petitioner's bag, the search 15 was incidental to his arrest of Petitioner, and the Court agrees with Presiding Judge Lamorena's 16 determination that the methamphetamine found during Officer Champion's search of the bag 17 was admissible because warrantless searches are allowed if the searches are incident to lawful 18

19 custodial arrests. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332,343,351 (2009).

20 Regarding Petitioner's allegation that he was arrested by marshals on May 18, 2024 21 without warrant, the record in CF0298-23 clearly shows that a summons was issued to secure 22 Petitioner's appearance at his July 5, 2023 arraignment hearing for violation of his house arrest.

23 The record further shows that Petitioner failed to appear at that hearing, which authorized 24

25 Magistrate Sison to issue a bench warrant for Petitioner's arrest on July 7, 2023. The Court thus

26 finds that Petitioner was arrested on May 18, 2024 pursuant to that outstanding warrant, refuting 27 Petitioner's claims that the arrest was "warrantless."

28

Page 6 of7

SP0162-24, Eli Chmfauros Quintanilla v. Allen Borja, et al.

The Court finds that Petitioner's claims for violation of due process are also baseless

2 because (1) Petitioner was committed after his arrest for failure to comply with his pre-trial

3 conditions, and the ensuing confinement was therefore valid; and (2) Petitioner's 4 characterization of the "bench trial" was incorrect, as it was merely a hearing on Petitioner's pro 5 se "motion to dismiss" and thus Petitioner was not entitled to any verdict.

6 CONCLUSION

7

8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

9 Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED MAR 1 4 2025 II ---------- 12

13

14 HONORABDE - - / .. , ~.

~,· ARTH.UR'.R~BARCINAS

15 __

Judge, Superfor. .ro'urf' of1Guam ....'-,/,'I'//

-...:...._ _..-,;, -

• • -• ~-";"' r-)_/

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 7 of7