PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 2017 >> [2017] GUSC 19

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

People of Guam v Sharp [2017] GUSC 19 (27 December 2017)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM


THE PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.


JOSHUA ALAN SHARP,
Defendant-Appellee.


Supreme Court Case No. CRA17-003
Superior Court Case No. CF0529-16


OPINION


Filed: December 27, 2017


Cite as: 2017 Guam 19


Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 25, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam


Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:
James C. Collins, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Prosecution Division
590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706
Tamuning, GU 96913
Appearing for Defendant-Appellee:
F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq.
Cunliffe & Cook, P.C.
210 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 2000
Hagåtña, GU 96910


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


MARAMAN, C.J.:
[1] People of Guam (“People”) appeal from a trial court order suppressing evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia discovered during a search of Defendant-Appellee Joshua Alan Sharp’s person and hotel room. In this appeal, we consider whether a warrantless arrest pursuant to 8 GCA § 20.15(a)(3) requires the misdemeanor, for which an officer has reasonable cause to believe has been committed, to be committed “in the officer’s presence.” We also consider whether a vacant hotel room constitutes a “dwelling” under 9 GCA § 37.30.
[2] Because we hold that a vacant hotel room is a “dwelling” under 9 GCA § 37.30 and officer presence is not required under 8 GCA § 20.15(a)(3), we reverse the suppression order and remand to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] A grand jury indicted Sharp on four charges: Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver; Promoting Major Prison Contraband; Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance; and Criminal Trespass. The indictment was predicated on the following alleged facts upon which the parties agreed for this appeal:
[4]


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2017/19.html