People of Guam v Manila [2005] GUSC 6; 2005 Guam 06 (21 February 2005)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JESSE QUICHOCHO MANILA,
Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

Filed: February 21, 2005

Cite as: 2005 Guam 6

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA03-005
Superior Court Case No.: CM0754-01

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 13, 2003
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: James J. Casey, Esq., AAG Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division Suite 2-200E, Judicial Ctr. Bldg. 120 W. O'Brien Dr. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Thomas J. Fisher, Esq. Associated Defense Advocates, P.C. 194 Hernan Cortes Ave., Ste. 213 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.

TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:

[1] The Plaintiff-Appellant, People of Guam (APeople"), appeal the dismissal of the underlying criminal case against the Defendant-Appellee, Jesse Quichocho Manila (AManila"), on double jeopardy grounds. The facts giving rise to the charges against Manila in the instant case, Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.), and Reckless Driving, were considered by the Superior Court (Arevocation court") in a prior probation revocation proceeding relating to a DUI conviction previously entered against Manila. The trial court in the present case held that the probation revocation court had already punished Manila for the offenses charged in the present case, and that further prosecution would violate Manila's rights against double jeopardy. We hold that the trial court correctly found that the prosecution for the DUI charges in the instant proceeding was barred under the double jeopardy clause, but erred in dismissing the prosecution for the Reckless Driving charge. We affirm the lower court's decision in part and reverse it in part.

I.

[2] On June 16, 2000, Manila pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.) and Reckless Driving with Injuries, both misdemeanors, in Superior Court Case No. CF470-97 (AFirst DUI case"). As part of the plea, Manila was sentenced as a first time DUI offender, and received two years probation.[1] As a condition of Manila's probation, Manila was instructed to refrain from consuming alcohol and from violating the laws of Guam during the two-year probationary period.

[3] On October 8, 2001, during the probationary period, Manila was charged with DUI, DUI (B.A.C.), and Reckless Driving in the underlying case, Superior Court Case No. CM754-01 (ASecond DUI case").

[4] One week later, the People filed a motion to revoke Manila's probation in the First DUI case. The motion was based on the People's contention that the charges in the Second DUI case amounted to a violation of the two aforementioned conditions of probation. The trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing, and ultimately found that Manila violated his probation in two respects:

(1) A[Manila] violated the law by Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol on October 8"; and

(2) A[Manila consumed] alcohol during the term of his probation."

Appellant's Excerpts of Record (AER"), Tab. 4, p. 4 (Disision Yan Otden