People of Guam v Singeo [2012] GUSC 28; Guam 27 2012 (31 December 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JUNIOR SINGEO,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA12-007
Superior Court Case No. CM0572-11

OPINION

Filed: December 31, 2012

Cite as: 2012 Guam 27

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted October 23, 2012
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Maria G. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Assistant Public Defender Public Defender Serv. Corp. MVP Sinajana Commercial Bldg. 779 Route 4, Unit B Sinajana, GU 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: James C. Collins, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 287 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice, and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant William Junior Singeo brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint. Singeo claims that under this court’s opinion in People v. Rasauo the complaint should be dismissed because he was not arraigned within sixty days of the filing of the complaint. 2011 Guam 14 ¶ 14 (hereinafter Rasauo II). Specifically, Singeo argues that no good cause existed for the twenty-eight day delay given for Singeo to meet with his appointed defense counsel. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a twenty-eight day delay to allow Singeo to consult with counsel in order to make an informed plea at the arraignment. Because there was good cause shown for this delay, Singeo was promptly arraigned pursuant to 8 GCA § 60.10(a) and this court’s ruling in Rasauo II, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2]