People of Guam v Tedtaotao [2015] GUSC 9 (8 April 2015)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Guam

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

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:
Brian D. Gallagher, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Prosecution Division
ITC Building
590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706
Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee:
Samuel S. Teker, Esq.
130 Aspinall Ave., Ste. 2A
Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant the People of Guam ("the People") appeal from the trial court's sentencing of Defendant-Appellee Raymond T. Tedtaotao. The People argue that the maximum sentence that Tedtaotao could receive for Attempted Murder is life imprisonment, rather than 20 years. Alternatively, the People argue that Tedtaotao could have received an extended sentence of life imprisonment as a persistent offender pursuant to 9 GCA § 80.38. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's sentence.

[2] Tedtaotao was indicted by a grand jury for Attempted Murder; Guilt by Complicity to Commit Attempted Murder; First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony); and Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). After a jury trial, he was found guilty of Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony); First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony); and Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). After the verdict, Tedtaotao waived his right to a speedy sentencing under 8 GCA § 120.14(b)(2).

[3] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed upon Tedtaotao one life term for each of the First Degree Felonies and 20 years for Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). For sentencing purposes, the court merged the offense of Aggravated Assault with the offense of Attempted Murder. The court derived these terms of imprisonment from the extended terms set forth in 9 GCA § 80.32,[1] which would apply to a "persistent offender" as defined under the provisions of 9 GCA § 80.38,[2] following a finding by the court of several qualifying factors.

[4] At a subsequent Restitution Hearing, the court sua sponte informed the parties that it was reconsidering the legality of imposing an extended term upon Tedtaotao in light of the Guam Supreme Court's opinion in People v. Muritok, 2003 Guam 21. The court ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefs regarding the implications of Muritok to the case at bar.

[5] The court then held a second Sentencing Hearing. Upon reviewing the parties' briefs and arguments, the court modified Tedtaotao's sentence. The court imposed upon Tedtaotao the maximum sentence of 20 years for Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony);[3] the maximum sentence of 25 years for First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); and the maximum sentence of 10 years for Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) was merged with the charge of Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony) pursuant to 9 GCA § 1.22(a) and 8 GCA § 105.58(3). The court imposed consecutive sentences, for a total term of 55 years of incarceration.

[6] We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 113-296 (2014)) and 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005).

[7] Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ¶ 13; People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 8; Ada v. Guam Tel. Auth., 1999 Guam 10 ¶ 10. The court's duty is to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent. Carlson v. Guam Tel. Auth., 2002 Guam 15 ¶ 46 n.7. "Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails." Sumitomo Constr., Co. v. Gov't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 17.

[8] The trial court's imposition of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Camacho, 2009 Guam 6 ¶ 14; People v. Diaz, 2007 Guam 3 ¶ 10; People v. Superior Court (Chiguina), 2003 Guam 11 ¶ 12. "'A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision.'" Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ¶ 13 (quoting Town House Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Ahn, 2003 Guam 6 ¶ 27).

[9] The People's appeal in this matter is limited to issues regarding Tedtaotao's sentence. First, the People argue that the maximum sentence that Tedtaotao could receive for Attempted Murder is life imprisonment, rather than 20 years. Second, the People argue that Tedtaotao could have received an extended sentence of life imprisonment as a persistent offender pursuant to 9 GCA § 80.38.

[10] The People first argue that the maximum sentence for Attempted Murder is life imprisonment. Specifically, the People argue that 9 GCA § 13.60(a) should be read together with 9 GCA § 16.40(b) to stand for the proposition that a conviction for Attempted Murder exposes an offender to the same penalty as that for Murder. Appellant's Br. at 9 (Sept. 2, 2014). The People concede that "[r]esearch has failed to uncover any authority directly contradicting the trial court's ruling that 9 GCA § 13.60(b)'s specific designation of attempted murder as a first degree felony is subject to 9 GCA § 80.30's mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison." Id. at 9. Nevertheless, the People maintain that the genesis and history of section 13.60, as well as public policy, favors interpreting section 13.60 as allowing the imposition of a life sentence for the crime of Attempted Murder. Id. at 11.

[11] However, the People's arguments in favor of reading section 13.60 as allowing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment do not extend beyond policy arguments. We are wary of such arguments. In Carlson v. Guam Telephone Authority, we noted that "our duty is to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent. Policy arguments . . . are more properly directed to the legislature. Courts are not in the business of judicial legislation." 2002 Guam 15 ¶ 46 n.7.

[12] Instead, our analysis focuses on the interpretation of the statutory scheme for Attempted Murder. In cases involving statutory construction, we must first look to the language of the statute itself. Sumitomo, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 17. Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning of the statute prevails. Id. However, the plain meaning of statutory language "'need not be followed where the result would lead to absurd or impractical consequences, untenable distinctions, or unreasonable results.'" Id. (quoting Bowlby v. Nelson, Civ. No. 83-0096A, 1985 WL 56583, at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 5, 1985)). Absurdity may result when a statute contains language that is broader and more sweeping than that which the legislature intended. Id. "In such cases, the court can interpret the broad language in a limited fashion in an effort to effectuate legislative intent." Id. Additionally, "in determining legislative intent, a statute should be read as a whole, and . . . courts should construe each section in conjunction with other sections." Id. Accordingly, "[i]n expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy." Id. (quoting Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 43 (1986)).

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious crime which is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy.

(b) Attempted murder, and solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder are felonies of the first degree.

Except as otherwise provided by law, a person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows:

(a) In the case of a felony of the first degree, the court shall impose a sentence of not less than five (5) years and not more than twenty (20) years[.]

(b) Murder is a felony of the first degree, but a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment notwithstanding any other provision of law; provided, however, that any person convicted of murder shall be eligible for parole after serving fifteen (15) years as provided in § 80.72 of this Title and no part of said sentence shall be suspended; provided, further, that any person convicted of murder shall also not be eligible for work release or educational programs outside the confines of prison.

[14] The plain language of the statutes indicates that Attempted Murder is punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. Title 9 GCA § 13.60(a) provides, "Except as otherwise provided in this Section attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious crime which is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy." 9 GCA § 13.60(a) (emphasis added). The very next subsection, section 13.60(b) provides such an exception: "Attempted murder, and solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder are felonies of the first degree." 9 GCA § 13.60(b) (emphasis added). In turn, 9 GCA § 80.30 sets the maximum sentence for felonies of the first degree at 20 years imprisonment. 9 GCA § 80.30(a).

[15] Title 9 GCA § 16.40(b) specifically provides that Murder is a first-degree felony punishable by life-imprisonment, but makes no mention of Attempted Murder. It seems logical to conclude that if the legislature intended Attempted Murder to be punished in the same manner as Murder, the legislature would not have carved out a separate subsection for Attempted Murder in section 13.60(b) of the statute. Thus, when section 13.60(b) is read together with 9 GCA § 80.30, the plain language indicates that Attempted Murder is punishable by a sentence of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years.

[16] Moreover, this court need not deviate from a plain reading of the statutory scheme because "absurd consequences," as defined by Sumitomo, do not result. See Sumitomo, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 17. The language of section 13.60(b) is not broader or more sweeping than that which the legislature intended. See id. Rather, the applicability of the subsection is specifically limited to attempt, solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder. Thus, we hold that a plain reading of section 13.60 supports the trial court's finding that Attempted Murder is to be punished by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.

[17] Second, the People argue that the trial court could have imposed a life sentence on Tedtaotao for Attempted Murder by finding that Tedtaotao qualified for an extended sentence as a "persistent offender" as defined in 9 GCA § 80.38. The People contend that such an extended sentence does not violate this court's holding in People v. Muritok, 2003 Guam 21, that 9 GCA § 80.38 is unconstitutional because of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

[18] Apprendi involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to a crime that carried a prison term of five to ten years. Id. at 469-70. Subsequently, the trial judge found that the defendant's conduct violated New Jersey's hate crime statute because it was racially motivated and imposed a twelve-year sentence, despite the ten-year maximum. Id. at 471. The Supreme Court set aside the enhanced sentence and held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 490. The Court found that the statute's labeling of a hate crime as a "sentence enhancement," rather than as a separate criminal act, was irrelevant for constitutional purposes. Id. at 478.

As a matter of simple justice, it seems obvious that the procedural safeguards designed to protect [the defendant] from unwarranted pains should apply equally to the two acts that New Jersey has singled out for punishment. Merely using the label "sentence enhancement" to describe the latter surely does not provide a principled basis for treating them differently.

when the term "sentence enhancement" is used to describe an increase beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence, it is the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury's guilty verdict. Indeed, it fits squarely within the usual definition of an "element" of the offense.

Supreme Court of Guam

People of Guam v Tedtaotao [2015] GUSC 9 (8 April 2015)