People of Guam v Aguirre [2004] GUSC 20; 2004 Guam 21 (1 December 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NATHAN G. AGUIRRE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA03-004
Superior Court Case No. CF0325-95

OPINION

Filed: December 1, 2004

Cite as: 2004 Guam 21

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted October 24, 2003
Hagåtña, Guam

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee: B. Ann Keith, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of Guam Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center 120 West O=Brien Drive Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant: Jehan=ad G. Martinez, Esq. Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson 1008 Pacific News Building 238 Archbishop Flores Street Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; JOHN A. MANGLONA and RICHARD H. BENSON, Justices Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, CJ.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Nathan G. Aguirre appeals from multiple convictions for murder and robbery. Aguirre argues that his right against double jeopardy was violated when he was convicted of aggravated murder during the commission of robbery, the underlying robbery charge, murder committed knowingly and murder committed recklessly, based upon a single act against a single victim. Aguirre also argues that the double jeopardy prohibition was violated by his convictions for more than one count of the special allegation of the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. Aguirre further argues that the delay of forty-four months between his conviction and sentencing divested the trial court of jurisdiction. Finally, Aguirre argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm Aguirre=s convictions for aggravated murder during the commission of a robbery, the separate offense of murder committed knowingly and their corresponding special allegations. We reverse Aguirre=s convictions for murder committed recklessly, robbery and their corresponding special allegations. We remand for sentencing on the charge of murder committed knowingly and its special allegation. We hold that the trial court was not divested of jurisdiction because of the forty-four month delay before sentencing. Last, we decline to reach Aguirre=s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

I.

[2] On the night of June 20, 1995, a cab driver, Petronio B. Dagalea, picked up two male passengers from the Duty Free Shoppers store in Tumon, Guam. Dagalea was later found robbed and shot to death in his cab along the road to Two Lovers Point, a popular tourist destination.

[3] On July 24, 1995, Aguirre was indicted on one count of aggravated murder, two counts of first degree murder, and one count of robbery.[1] Aguirre was also charged with a special allegation of possession and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of each of these felonies. Aguirre waived his right to a speedy trial allegedly upon the advice of his trial counsel and the case proceeded to trial in July of 1996. On July 12, 1996, the jury found Aguirre guilty on all the charges and special allegations. The trial court scheduled a sentencing hearing for July 26, 1996, but at the request of Aguirre=s trial counsel, the sentencing hearing was continued pending a motion for a new trial. Prior to the hearing on the motion for a new trial, Aguirre obtained new counsel. On June 13, 1997, the trial court denied Aguirre=s motion for a new trial but did not set a date for the sentencing hearing.

[4] For nearly three years, the case sat dormant. Finally, on February 3, 2000, Aguirre filed a motion to dismiss. Aguirre=s counsel then filed a motion for a psychiatric examination. On March 27, 2000, the trial court sentenced Aguirre to life imprisonment without parole for the murder charges and twenty-five years imprisonment for the special allegations, to be served consecutive to the sentence for murder. On May 10, 2000, the trial court denied Aguirre=s motion to dismiss.

[5] On April 30, 2002, Aguirre filed another motion to dismiss. On July 25, 2002, the trial court excused Aguirre=s counsel and through August 27, 2002, appointed and excused four different attorneys for Aguirre. On September 3, 2002, the trial court appointed Aguirre=s present counsel.

[6] On February 21, 2003, the trial court filed its Judgment. On February 24, 2003, the trial court denied Aguirre=s motion to dismiss filed on April 30, 2002. Aguirre appealed.

II.

[7] The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court. Title 7 GCA ' 3107 (2004).

III.

[8]