Pangelinan v. Pangelinan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DUAYNE RICHARD PETERS, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA23-008 Superior Court Case No. CF0112-20 OPINION Cite as: 2025 Guam 1 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and submitted on July 15, 2024 Hagåtña, Guam Appearing for Defendant-Appellant Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua D. Walsh, Esq. Christine Santos Tenorio, Esq. Razzano Walsh & Torres, P.C. Assistant Attorney General 139 Murray Blvd., Ste. 100 Office of the Attorney General Hagåtña, GU 96910 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 801 Tamuning, GU 96913 People v. Peters, 2025 Guam 1, Opinion Page 2 of 15 BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice. MARAMAN, J.: [1] Defendant-Appellant Duayne Richard Peters appeals his conviction for four counts of First-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (“CSC I”) and two counts of Second-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (“CSC II”), along with two Vulnerable Victim Special Allegations. Peters argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed his wife to plead guilty and testify against him pursuant to a plea agreement that placed her under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular manner. He argues that despite his wife admitting to abusing the victim, she “testified at the insistence of the Government . . . that the abuse was committed by Mr. Peters.” Appellant’s Br. at 9 (May 13, 2024). Peters also makes the claim he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [2] A grand jury returned an indictment against Peters and his wife,1 N.P., for criminal sexual conduct committed against a girl related to N.P. Peters was initially charged with five counts of CSC I and three counts of CSC II. N.P. was charged with two counts of CSC I and two counts of CSC II under a theory of complicity. The criminal sexual conduct was alleged to have occurred when the victim was under the age of fourteen. N.P. was alleged to have admitted to police that there was an incident where Peters had sex with her and then with the victim, and another incident where she watched Peters penetrate the victim with a vibrator. Super. Ct. Case No. CF0112-20- 01 (Magis.’s Compl. at 5, Feb. 17, 2020).2 1 N.P. testified that she married Peters in 2017 and was still married to him at the time of trial. 2 Although outside the record of this appeal, we can properly take judicial notice of documents filed in N.P.’s case. See People v. Tedtaotao, 2023 Guam 21 ¶ 2 n.1. In our discretion and without request, we take judicial notice People v. Peters, 2025 Guam 1, Opinion Page 3 of 15 [3] Peters moved to sever, based in part on (1) his claim that N.P. had made incriminating statements which also implicated him and (2) his claim that while he denied the alleged acts had occurred, she had “admitted to it.” Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 19 at 1–3 (Mot. Sever, Apr. 10, 2020). The unopposed motion was granted, and the prosecution against N.P. was captioned as CF0112-20-01. A jury was selected for N.P.’s trial, but before being empaneled, it appears N.P. reached a plea agreement with the People. See CF0112-20-01 (Min. Entry at 2, Dec. 16, 2020); Appellee’s Br. at 2 (June 12, 2024). N.P. agreed to plead guilty to Criminal Facilitation of First- Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a Third-Degree Felony). CF0112-20-01 (Plea Agreement at 2, Feb. 1, 2021). In exchange for her cooperation against Peters, N.P. was given immunity, all other charges were dropped, and the People agreed to a sentence of time served. Id. at 3–5. [4] N.P.’s plea agreement provided that “Defendant agrees to fully and truthfully cooperate with the Government of Guam Attorney General’s Office . . . .” Id. at 3. The agreement further stated that: Defendant agrees to testify truthfully at any Court proceeding, including grand jury, trial or any other hearing to which he [sic] is called to testify, specifically concerning her own case or those involving her co-actor pursuant to Guam Police Department Report No. 19-06305 and written statement and/or testimony against her co-actor,

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BRUCE W. STREIBICH S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0043 Appellant/Defendant ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 459/1995 y )) (STI) CHARLES A. KAPLANEK, III, ) Appellee/Plaintiff, and ) WARREN STRYKER AND MARGARET ) STRYKER Appellees/Intervening Plaintiffs, ) ) ARTHUR SCHMAUDER, ELIZABETH MCGUIRE, AND BLUE WATERS RETREAT ) LLC, ) Intervening Defendants. ! ) On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St. Thomas & St. John Superior Court Judge: Hon. Renee Gumbs Carty Argued: April 8, 2025 Filed: June 4, 2025 Cite as: 2025 VI 13 BEFORE RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice, HON. MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and HON. HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice APPEARANCES Carol Ann Rich, Esq. (Argued) Malorie Winne Diaz, Esq Dudley Rich LLP St. Thomas, U.S.V.1 Attorney for Appellant/Defendant, Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. (Argued) Joseph D. Sauerwein, Esq Law Offices of Duensing & Casner St. Thomas, U.S.V.I Attorney for Appellee/Plaintiff and Appellees/Intervening Plaintiffs ' The intervening defendants in the underlying lawsuit are not parties in this appeal Streibich v. Kaplanek, et al 2025 VI 13 S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0043 Opinion of the Court Page 2 of 22 OPINION OF THE COURT WILLOCKS, Associate Justice q1 Appellant Bruce W. Streibich (hereinafter “Streibich”) appeals from the June 25, 2024 order of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Superior Court”) holding Streibich in contempt for violating the Superior Court’s April 29, 2024 order and declaratory judgment I. BACKGROUND? 42 The lengthy history of this litigation began in June 1995 when Karen R. Underwood (hereinafter “Underwood” filed a complaint against Streibich and Katharine H. Streibich* for a declaratory judgment of an easement in connection with Underwood’s property located at Parcel No. 4-27, Estate Tabor and Harmony, Nos. 5 & 6 East End Quarter, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Parcel No. 4-27”) and Streibich and Katharine H. Streibich’s property located at Parcel No. 4-26.° The gravamen of the lawsuit was whether an easement exists across Parcel No. 4-26 for the benefit of Parcel No. 4-27. While Underwood referenced several maps in her complaint, of relevance here is the PWD B9-31-T5S7 map (hereinafter “T57 Map’) which depicts the planned subdivision of the property that resulted in, inter alia, Parcel Nos. 4-26 and 4-27, and 2 This Court will recite only those facts and procedural history relevant to this instant appeal. To construct a more comprehensive and accurate background, this Court takes judicial notice of other courts’ dockets and papers. See Cianci v. Chaput, 64 V.I. 682, 690 n.2 (V.I. 2016) (recognizing that courts may take judicial notice of other courts' dockets and papers); cf King v. Appleton, 61 V.1. 339, 348 (V.I. 2014) (“[T]he Superior Court may take judicial notice of the existence of a document that has been filed with it in another proceeding.”’) (quotation marks and citation omitted) 3 On March 4, 2022, the Superior Court entered an order in which it found that Underwood's son Charles Anthony Kaplanek, III (hereinafter “Kaplanek”) was the real party in interest with respect to Parcel No. 4-27 since “Underwood deeded her interest in the property to him on June 30, 2016, by deed recorded as Document No. 2016004645” and thus, the court substituted Kaplanek in place of Underwood as the plaintiff but ordered that “the original Plaintiff's name shall remain” in the caption. For the sake of clarity and accuracy, this Court will refer to Kaplanek (owner of Parcel No. 4-27) instead of Underwood as the appellee in this appeal to reflect the proper party * Katharine H. Streibich passed away in February 1999 > Unless otherwise noted, all parcels referenced herein are located at Estate Tabor and Harmony, Nos. 5 & 6 East End Quarter, St. Thomas, U.