People of Guam v Manila [2018] GUSC 24 (21 December 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID Q. MANILA,

Defendant-Appellant,

ANTHONY T. QUENGA and SONG JA CHA,

Defendants.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA17-005
Superior Court Case No.: CF0020-08

OPINION

Filed: December 21, 2018

Cite as: 2018 Guam 24

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 18, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Terence E. Timblin, Esq. One Agana Bay 446 E. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 201 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Marianne Woloschuk, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, Guam 96913

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

MARAMAN, C.J.:
[1] Defendant-Appellant David Q. Manila appeals from a final judgment of conviction. Previously, Manila appealed multiple convictions related to conspiracy, kidnapping, prostitution, and criminal sexual conduct (“CSC”), as described in People v. Manila, 2015 Guam 40 (“Manila I”).^[1] For the reasons set forth in Manila I, we vacated certain convictions while affirming others and remanded the case. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the amended judgment entered by the trial court on remand.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] The issues in this appeal relate solely to sentencing. After a jury convicted Manila of multiple crimes, the trial court initially sentenced Manila to two concurrent thirty-year terms of imprisonment for two first-degree CSC convictions, to run concurrently with shorter sentences for other convictions. Because we determined on appeal that several of the charges on which Manila was convicted at trial required reversal, we remanded the case with directions to the trial court “to vacate the improper convictions and resentence.” Manila I, 2015 Guam 40 ¶ 66.
[3]