People of Guam v Alisasis [2006] GUSC 9; 2006 Guam 09 (25 July 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

EDWIN V. ALISASIS
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA03-006
Superior Court Case No.: CF0302-95

OPINION

Filed: July 25, 2006

Cite as: 2006 Guam 9

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 20, 2003
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Jane L. Kennedy, Esq. Public Defender Service Corp. 200 Judicial Ctn. Annex 110 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: B. Ann Keith Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 287 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR. Associate Justice;^[1] RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, C.J.:

[1] This appeal arises from a criminal case prosecuted by Plaintiff-Appellee People of Guam ("People") against Defendant-Appellant Edwin V. Alisasis ("Alisasis") in the Superior Court of Guam. On February 1, 1996, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court accepted Alisasis’ pleas of guilty to theft and forgery, both as second degree felonies. On April 12, 1996, the trial court orally imposed Alisasis’ original sentence pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. A judgment was entered thereafter. On June 12, 1997, the trial court granted a joint motion to correct a mistake in the original judgment. An amended judgment was entered, superceding the original judgment.^[2]

[2] Alisasis appeals from the trial court’s holding that his amended sentence includes two consecutive five-year periods of felony probation, that such a sentence is legal in Guam, that his probation was scheduled to last until 2006 and that the trial court therefore possessed jurisdiction over his case on June 28, 2002.

[3] We find that the trial court did not possess the authority under 8 GCA § 120.50 to change Alisasis’ original judgment as it did. We therefore vacate the amended judgment and reinstate the original judgment. We further find that the issues raised on appeal are moot as they relate solely to the amended judgment and its amended sentence. This matter is therefore remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[4]