People of the Territory of Guam v. Okada

• Decision Date: 09 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 80-1233,80-1233
• Citation: 694 F.2d 565
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Concepcion OKADA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 565

694 F.2d 565

PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Concepcion OKADA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-1233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 1980.

Opinion Originally Filed April 19, 1981.

Withdrawn July 15, 1981.

Decided Dec. 9, 1982.

R. Barrie Michelson, Acting Criminal Deputy, Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellant.

Howard Trapp, Trapp, Cayle, Teker, Lacy, Yamaoka & Schnabel, Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the District Court of Guam, Appellate Division.

Before SKOPIL, FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Concepcion Okada was convicted in the Superior Court of Guam on charges of delivering heroin. The Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam (District Court) reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, holding that the Government's failure to preserve certain discoverable evidence violated Okada's due process rights. The People of the Territory of Guam brought this appeal. Okada moved to dismiss, on the ground that Guam lacks statutory authority to appeal from the reversal of a conviction by the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam. We postponed consideration of Okada's motion until the appeal was heard on the merits.

Our previous opinion, filed April 19, 1981, has been vacated. We now conclude that Guam's appeal is not authorized by statute. Accordingly, we grant Okada's motion and dismiss the appeal.

I

It has long been established that the Government may not appeal in a criminal case in the absence of express statutory authority. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 336, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1018, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 400, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1336, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442 (1957); United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310, 318, 12 S.Ct. 609, 612, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892). The Supreme Court has explained that " 'appeals by the Government in criminal cases are something unusual, exceptional, not favored,' ... at least in part because they always threaten to offend the policies behind the double jeopardy prohibition." Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96, 88 S.Ct. 269, 274, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967) (quoting Carroll, 354 U.S. at 400, 77 S.Ct. at 1336). But the rule prohibiting Government appeals except where expressly authorized by statute extends "over and above the constitutional protection against double jeopardy." DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 130, 82 S.Ct. 654, 660, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962). Although Guam's appeal would not violate the double jeopardy clause, ¹ we must nevertheless dismiss unless Guam can show that its appeal is expressly authorized by statute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1976), this court has jurisdiction over "all final decisions of ... the District Court of Guam ... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." However, section 1291 alone does not provide the necessary authority for Government appeals in criminal cases. Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 246, 101 S.Ct. 1657, 1666, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981); DiBella, 369 U.S. at 130, 82 S.Ct. at 659-60; Umbriaco v. United States, 258 F.2d 625, 626 (9th Cir.1958); Virgin Islands v. Hamilton, 475 F.2d 529, 531 (3d Cir.1973).

Hamilton provides a close parallel to the present case. The District Court of the Virgin Islands had reversed a criminal conviction, and the Government of the Virgin Islands brought an appeal in the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit rejected the suggestion that section 1291, standing alone, authorized the Virgin Islands' appeal. Finding no other statutory authorization for the appeal, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. After reaching this result, the court noted that its conclusion was

reinforced by the fact that under the local law of the Virgin Islands the defendant alone has the right in a criminal case to appeal to the district court from a judgment of the municipal court. 4 V.I.C. Sec. 33.

475 F.2d at 531. Guam contends that this case is distinguishable from Hamilton because Guam, unlike the Virgin Islands, has authorized the Government to appeal from some superior court judgments in criminal cases. See Guam Crim.Proc.Code Sec. 130.20(a) (1977). ² In Guam's view, section 130.20(a) provides authority for appeals to this court, as well as for appeals to the district court.

In Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 101 S.Ct. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981), the Supreme Court discussed the statutory authority necessary for a Government appeal in a criminal case. The defendant in Manypenny was a federal officer charged with a state crime, who had removed his case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) (1976). The officer was convicted, but the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal. Although state law would have permitted an appeal by the state within its own court system, no statute expressly authorized the state to appeal from federal district court to the federal court of appeals. ³

The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing an appeal within the state court system provided sufficient authority for the state's appeal in federal court. The Court reasoned that "[t]he need to restrict appeals by the prosecutor reflected a prudential concern that individuals should be free from the harassment and vexation of unbounded litigation by the sovereign." 451 U.S. at 246, 101 S.Ct. at 1666. The rule barring Government appeals except when authorized by statute was developed to meet this concern. However, the Manypenny Court saw no reason to require express authorization by federal statute in every case. 451 U.S. at 247, 101 S.Ct. at 1667. Instead, the Court ruled that "[t]he intention to restrict sovereign power in this area is adequately addressed when the legislature responsible for the power has spoken in express terms." Id. at 249, 101 S.Ct. at 1668. In other words, if a state statute authorizes an appeal by the state in state court, that statute will provide authority for an appeal of a removal case in federal court as well.

II

The state statute involved in Manypenny authorized an appeal from a trial court to an appellate court. It is undisputed that Guam law authorizes an appeal from the Guam trial courts to an intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam. See Guam Crim.Proc.Code Sec. 130.20(a) (1977). The present case raises a different issue, however. The question we must answer is whether any law authorizes a second appeal, from the District Court to this court.

Guam takes the position that section 130.20(a) authorizes appeals by Guam from decisions of the District Court. Before we can consider whether the Guam legislature intended section 130.20(a) to authorize appeals from the District Court, we must inquire whether the Guam legislature has the power to authorize such appeals at all.

A

Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over territories of the United States. Late Corporation of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 32, 10 S.Ct. 792, 802, 34 L.Ed. 478 (1890). Guam, as an unincorporated territory, 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1421a (1976), is subject to this plenary power. Agana Bay Development Co. (Hong Kong) v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1976). Congress has the power to legislate directly for Guam, or to establish a government for Guam subject to congressional control. Except as Congress may determine, Guam has no inherent right to govern itself. See First National Bank of Brunswick v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046 (1880).

Guam's present form of government was established by Congress in 1950. Organic Act of Guam, ch. 512, 64 Stat. 384 (codified at 48 U.S.C. Secs. 1421-1426 (1976)). The Organic Act created a Guam Legislature, and vested it with power "extend[ing] to all subjects of legislation of local application not inconsistent with the provisions of [the Organic Act] and the laws of the United States applicable to Guam." 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1423a. The provisions of the Organic Act thus set the outer limits of the Guam Legislature's authority. Agana Bay Development Co., 529 F.2d at 954; United States v. Borja, 191 F.Supp. 563, 566 (D.Guam 1961).

With respect to the Guam court system, the Organic Act carefully distinguishes between those areas in which Guam is empowered to legislate, and those areas reserved to Congress. 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1424. ⁴ The Act creates a District Court of Guam and authorizes the Guam legislature to create other courts. The District Court is vested with original jurisdiction over federal questions and any local matters "jurisdiction over which has not been transferred by the legislature to other court or courts established by it." Id. Sec. 1424(a). The District Court is also given "such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine." Id. The legislature is authorized to prescribe "[t]he jurisdiction of and the procedure in the courts of Guam other than the District Court of Guam," id., but the federal rules of procedure are made applicable "to the District Court of Guam and to appeals therefrom," id. Sec. 1424(b).

B

Under the terms of the Organic Act, the Guam Legislature has no power to legislate procedure either in the District Court of Guam on appeal from the District Court to the Ninth Circuit. See Phelan v. Territory of Guam, 394 F.2d 293, 296 (9th Cir.1968). If the authority to appeal in criminal cases is a matter of procedure, we must conclude that the Guam Legislature lacks power to authorize appeals from judgments of the District Court.

Judicial "procedure" has been defined as "the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them." Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 14, 61 S.Ct. 422, 426, 85 L.Ed. 479 (1941); accord, Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 464, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1140, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). In a criminal case such as...