People of Guam v Tennessen [2011] GUSC 2; 2011 Guam 02 (2 February 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

V

GENE A. TENNESSEN,
Defendant,

DOUGLAS B. MOYLAN,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA09-012
Superior Court Case No. CF0292-02

OPINION

Filed: February 2, 2011

Cite as: 2011 Guam 2

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted November 4, 2010
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Marianne Woloschuk Esq. Assistant Attorney General of Guam Office of the Attorney General 287 W O'Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910	Appearing for Defendant: F. Randall Cunliffe Esq. Cunliffe & Cook, P.C. 210 Archbishop F.B. Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910
Appearing for Real Party in Interest-Appellant: Curtis C. Van de veld, Esq. Second Flr., Historical Bldg. 123 Hernan Cortes Ave. Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Self-styled "Real Party in Interest-Appellant" Douglas B. Moylan ("Moylan") appeals from a written decision and order of the trial court which lifted a previous order concerning the construction of a conflicts wall in this case. Moylan argues not that the lifting of the previous order was incorrect, but rather that the trial court erred in failing to lift the previous order nunc pro tunc. We find that Moylan has no constitutional standing to bring these claims to this court, and therefore dismiss this appeal without reaching the merits of Moylan's various arguments.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2]