People of Guam v Tedtaotao [2014] GUSC 33 (2 December 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RAYMOND TORRES TEDTAOTAO,

Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-003
Superior Court Case No.: CF0289-13

OPINION

Filed: December 2, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 33

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on July 29, 2014
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: James C. Collins, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 590 S. Marine Corps Drive, Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Leslie A. Travis, Esq. Joshua D. Walsh, Esq. Civille & Tang, PLLC 330 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant People of Guam ("People") appeal the trial court's decision to grant Defendant-Appellee Raymond T. Tedtaotao's motion to dismiss the indictment. The trial court found that the People violated 8 GCA § 45.10 by failing to bring Tedtaotao before a judge within 48 hours following his arrest, and also violated 8 GCA §§ 45.50 and 45.80 by failing to file the indictment within the applicable time period. The trial court dismissed the case pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60 for failure to file the indictment within certain applicable time periods.

[2] On appeal, the People argue that the trial court erred in its application of the 48-hour time requirement in section 45.10 because Tedtaotao was never "subjected to any significant pretrial restraint of liberty" following his arrest in this case because his confinement was incident to a violation in an unrelated case. Appellant's Br. at 8-17 (May 29, 2014). Tedtaotao maintains that the People's position is untenable and contrary to the irrefutable record pertaining to Tedtaotao's arrest in this case. We agree with the People that the trial court erred in applying section 45.10 to the facts of this case and reverse.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]