People of Guam v Corpuz [2019] GUSC 1 (22 March 2019)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES NICHOLAS CORPUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: March 22, 2019

Cite as: 2019 Guam 1

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA16-014
Superior Court Case No.: CF0321-15

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on July 12, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Anthony R. Camacho, Esq. 414 W. Soledad Ave., Ste. 808 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:
[1] Defendant-Appellant James Nicholas Corpuz appeals from a final judgment of conviction following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of four counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (“CSC”) (as a 1st Degree Felony); six counts of Second Degree CSC (as a 1st Degree Felony); two counts of Third Degree CSC (as a 2nd Degree Felony); and one count of Fourth Degree CSC (as a Misdemeanor).^[1]
[2] Corpuz asserts three arguments on appeal. First, he contends that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated in a prior, related case which should have been dismissed with prejudice, barring any subsequent prosecution for this alleged conduct. Second, Corpuz argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the People to file an amended indictment. Finally, he attacks his sentence by arguing (a) the trial court failed to give him credit for time detained, (b) the trial court failed to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence, and (c) the sentence was excessive because it applied the maximum permitted sentence for his First Degree CSC convictions.
[3] For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for the sole and limited purpose of modifying the sentence to credit Corpuz with prior time detained, under 9 GCA § 80.46(a).

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[4] This case has a somewhat complicated procedural background that involves three Superior Court of Guam criminal cases. What follows is a chronology of these cases.^[2]
A. The Original Case: CF0102-15
[5] Corpuz was indicted on two charges of First Degree CSC (as a First Degree Felony) filed under Superior Court of Guam Case No. CF0102-15, alleging incidents of criminal sexual conduct by Corpuz against two minors. He was arraigned and asserted his right to a speedy trial under 8 GCA § 80.60. A pre-trial conference was scheduled for April 7, 2015, and trial was set for April 15, 2015. Because of clerical error, neither the pre-trial conference nor the trial was called by the court on these respective dates.
[6] On April 23, 2015, Corpuz moved to dismiss CF0102-15 with prejudice because his statutory right to a speedy trial under Guam’s speedy trial statute, 8 GCA § 80.60, was violated because he had been in custody from the time of his arraignment for a period longer than the 45-day window permitted under 8 GCA § 80.60. In response, the People conceded that a violation of 8 GCA § 80.60 had occurred and there was no good cause for the delay, but argued that dismissal should be without prejudice. On April 29, 2015, the trial court granted Corpuz’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and a written decision and order followed.
B. The Second Case: CF0262-15
[7] The day following dismissal of CF0102-15, the People obtained a second indictment with identical charges, based on allegations described in the same police report, which was filed under a second case number, Superior Court of Guam Case No. CF0262-15.
[8] Corpuz moved to dismiss CF0262-15, arguing that the dismissal in CF0102-15 should have been with prejudice. Under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), the People likewise moved to dismiss CF0262-15 on the basis that the allegations made by the victims more closely matched the timeline of the offenses charged in CF0321-15, rather than those charged in CF0262-15. See generally 8 GCA § 80.70(a) (“The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment . . . and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate.”). The trial court summarily granted the People’s motion, without prejudice and without considering any substantive arguments presented by either party.
C. The Third and Present Case: CF0321-15
[9] Less than a month after indicting Corpuz in CF0262-15, the People also obtained a third, superseding indictment with several additional charges, related to the allegations described in the initial police report, and alleging different specific date ranges of criminal sexual conduct. This third indictment was filed under Superior Court of Guam Case No. CF0321-15 and is the subject of the present appeal. Corpuz moved to dismiss the present case, CF0321-15, arguing that dismissal in CF0102-15 should have been with prejudice. The trial court denied Corpuz’s motion to dismiss. Corpuz sought interlocutory review, which we denied. See CRA15-031 (Pet. Permission to Appeal (Aug. 25, 2015)); CRA15-031 (Order (Sept. 28, 2015)). Subsequently, CF0321-15 went to trial. During trial, the People moved to amend certain counts in the indictment to conform to the testimony of one of the victims. Transcript (“Tr.”) at 121-124 (Jury Trial, May 18, 2016). Specifically, the People requested dismissal of two counts of First Degree CSC and amendment of three counts of Second Degree CSC. Id. at 121. The trial court dismissed the two pertinent counts of First Degree CSC. Id. at 122. Over Corpuz’s objection, the trial court also granted the People’s motion to amend the indictment. Id. at 189-90. A jury found Corpuz guilty of four counts of First Degree CSC (as a First Degree Felony); six counts of Second Degree CSC (as a First Degree Felony); two counts of Third Degree CSC (as a Second Degree Felony); and one count of Fourth Degree CSC (as a Misdemeanor).
[10]