People of Guam v Flores [1998] GUSC 25; 1998 Guam 25 (2 December 1998)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Supreme Court No. CRA97-20

) Superior Court No. CM241-96

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

vs. ) OPINION

)

ANTHONY C. FLORES, )

)

Defendant-Appellant. )

____________________________________)

Filed: December 2, 1998

Cite as: 1998 Guam 25

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted on 9 October 1998
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee: Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant:

Robert H. Kono, Attorney General (Acting) D. Paul Vernier, Jr.

By: David M. Moore Vernier Law Office

Assistant Attorney General Suite 808, GCIC Building

Office of the Attorney General 414 West Soledad Avenue

Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Bldg. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

120 West O-Brien Drive
Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS and JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, SR., Associate Justices.

WEEKS, J:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Anthony C. Flores appeals the trial court=s conviction of the charge of Resisting Arrest (As a Misdemeanor). Upon review of the record, we affirm the holding of the trial court.

I.

[2] On 2 May 1996, Superior Court Marshals Roland E. Okada and Theodoro P. Padua went to a residence believed to be that of Ignacio Flores to serve upon him an arrest warrant. After knocking on the door, the marshals were met by Defendant-Appellant Anthony Flores (Appellant). The marshals identified themselves and announced that they were there to serve a warrant on Ignacio Flores. There was conversation between Appellant and the marshals in which Appellant cursed at the marshals and told them to get off his property. The marshals were subsequently told by Rita Flores, the wife of Ignacio Flores, that Ignacio did not live at the house. One of the marshals believed there to be an active warrant out for Anthony Flores. After verifying that there was an outstanding felony warrant out for Anthony Flores, the marshals called for backup. Upon the arrival of two other marshals, they approached the house again and knocked on the door. Mary Flores, Appellant=s sister, came to the door. The marshals asked Mary to call her brother Anthony out to speak with them, that they wished to apologize to him for the earlier exchange of words, which was an attempt to ruse him out of the house. When Appellant would not come out, the marshals entered the residence, amidst shouts from other family members to leave. The marshals then spotted Appellant at the top of a stairway, informed him of the arrest warrant, and advised him that he was under arrest. Appellant shouted at them to leave and moved further back into the house. A stand-off ensued where Marshal Okada attempted to grab Appellant=s arm, and then around the waist, which resulted in Appellant=s putting the marshal into a headlock. The marshal was released from the headlock with the assistance of another marshal.

[3] Appellant then positioned himself on the floor in a hallway and tightened up his body in such a way that the marshals were unable to bring his arms behind his back for cuffing. Meanwhile, family members were asking to see a copy of the warrant. The marshals called for a copy of the warrant to be brought to the residence. Approximately thirty minutes later, after being shown a copy of the warrant, Appellant submitted peacefully to the marshals.

[4] On 8 May 1996, Appellant was indicted on two charges: Assault on a Peace Officer (As a 3rd Degree Felony) and Resisting Arrest (As a Misdemeanor). After a bench trial, Appellant was acquitted of the charge of Assault on a Peace Officer (As a 3rd Degree Felony) and found guilty of Resisting Arrest (As a Misdemeanor). Appellant was sentenced to thirty (30) days imprisonment at the Department of Corrections. Sentence was suspended and Appellant was placed on one (1) year probation. Judgment was entered on 8 October 1997. Pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for the Supreme Court of Guam, Appellant filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal on 17 November 1997, which was allowed by the court, and Notice of Appeal was filed on that same date.

II.

[5] This court has jurisdiction under 7 GCA '' 3107 and 3108(a) (1994) and 48 U.S.C. ' 1424-3(d) (1984). Appellant raises the issues of whether the arrest was in violation of 8 GCA ' 20.50 (1993), Guam=s knock-and-announce statute, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant=s conviction for Resisting Arrest (As a Misdemeanor).

III.

[6] An appellate court reviews the application of the knock-and-announce statute[1] as a question of law subject to de novo review. U.S. v. Contreras-Ceballos, 999 F.2d 432, 434 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing U.S. v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346, 1355 (9th Cir. 1991)). The court=s factual findings, however, are reviewed for clear error. Id. When a criminal defendant asserts that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to ascertain whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Gill, Crim. No. 92-00099A, 1994 WL 150934, at *6 (D. Guam App. Div. April 15, 1994)(citing U.S. v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993)), aff=d and remanded 613 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. den. 517 U.S. 1167, 116 S.Ct. (1996), and appeal after remand 1997 WL 209004 (D. Guam App. Div. April 21, 1997), aff=d 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997); see also People v. Cruz, 1998 Guam 18, & 9 (applying the same test for purposes of a judgment of acquittal). The Ninth Circuit has noted that this is a highly deferential standard. Id., (citing U.S. v. Rubio-Villareal, 967 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc)).