{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\* \cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2443598 \rsid3560589\rsid8158890\rsid8863264\rsid9508377\rsid13729104}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr14\min7}{\version5}{\edmins2}{\nofpages8} {\nofwords2450}{\nofchars13967}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws16385}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1170 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot13729104 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13729104 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13729104 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13729104 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13729104 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1170\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13729104\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 People v. Palomo}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , 1998 Guam 12, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid13729104 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2443598 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 of 10 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2443598 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\ul\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2443598 {\ul\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5760\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 PEOPLE OF GUAM,\tab }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab \tab \tab )\tab Supreme Court Case No.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid8158890 CRA97-018}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 )\tab Superior Court Case No.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \b\insrsid13729104\charrsid8158890 CM0359-96}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890 Plaintiff-Appellant,\tab )}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi5040\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-3600\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid8158890 vs.}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-1440\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 )\tab }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab OPINION}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 PETER G. R. PALOMO,}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab \tab \tab \tab ) \par }\pard \qj \fi5040\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-2160\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Defendant-Appellee.\tab ) \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 __________________________________________)}{\insrsid3560589 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Filed: July 15, 1998 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Cite as: 1998 Guam 12 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and Submitted on May 3, 1998 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\ul\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par MYLENE N. R. LOPEZ \par Assistant Attorney General \par Office of the Attorney General \par Prosecution Division \par Suite 2-200E Judicial Center Building \par 120 West O}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \par }{\ul\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee:}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par DANIEL R. DEL PRIORE \par Law Offices of Del Priore &Associates, P.C. \par Suite 507, GCIC Building \par 414 West Soledad Avenue \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid3560589 \par \par }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS, and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices. \par \par }{\b\insrsid8158890\charrsid8158890 CRUZ, J:}{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid8158890 \par }{\insrsid8158890\charrsid3560589 \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [1]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The court reviews this matter pursuant to an appeal from the Superior Court after the trial court dismissed the case based on the People}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s failure to charge out the case prior to the }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 notice to appear}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 date given to the Defendant-Appellee at the time when he was booked and released.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The People contend that they are given great discretion for charging out cases and that they are not controlled by the notice to appear date.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The trial court, having previously ruled on the same issue, found that the applicable statute requires the People to make a determination prior to the notice to appear date to either file a complaint in the cas e or, if no complaint is to be filed, to make reasonable efforts to notify the defendant that appearance on the notice to appear date is unnecessary.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 As a result, the trial court dismissed the case against the Defendant-Appellee with prejudice.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The court agrees with and adopts the trial court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s interpretation of the applicable statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The trial court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s dismissal of the case is hereby AFFIRMED. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890\charrsid8158890 \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [2]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The Defendant, Peter Gerard Roberto Palomo, was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) on August 28, 1995.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The Defendant was also subjected to a breath test which yielded a result of greater than .08% B.A.C.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The Defendant was booked and released and given a copy of a }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Notice to Appear}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 ordering him to appear before the Superior Court on November 29, 1995.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 On the date of his notice to appea r the Defendant had not been previously served with a Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 45.20 (1993), nor was the Defendant advised not to appear.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 On March 19, 1996, the Government filed a Complaint with supporting a ffidavit of probable cause charging the Defendant with DUI, as a misdemeanor, and Driving While Having .08% or More of Alcohol.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 On March 21, 1997, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the People}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s fai lure to timely issue a complaint or inform the Defendant not to appear pursuant to 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30 (1995).}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The court heard arguments and on August 21, 1997 issued a written decision and order on August 28, 1997 dismissing the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 A timely notice of appeal was then filed on September 24, 1997.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 As this decision and order effected a dismissal, it is clear that it was inten ded as a final disposition of the case. Final disposition of the case enables this court to obtain and exercise jurisdiction over the matter and properly review the issues on appeal.}}}{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 ISSUES \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890\charrsid8158890 \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [3]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The People raise the following issues on appeal:}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 (1)}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The is sues presented in the case are not properly before the court because the trial court erred in ignoring binding precedent.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 (2)}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice based on the defendant}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s claim of untimely prosecution. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 ANALYSIS}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890\charrsid8158890 \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [4]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab Jurisdiction over this matter is vested in the court through 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 1424-3(d) (1984) and 7 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 3107(b) (1994).}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 de novo}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 . }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Quichocho}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 1997 Guam 13, }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 3.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 I. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890\charrsid8158890 \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [5]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The People take the position that the case is not properly before the court because the trial court failed to recognize and follow binding precedent.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 This argument is curious to begin with as it is the People who are appealing the decision, yet they claim that the case is not properly before the court.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The People contend that the trial court erred by not following binding precedent set by the Appellate Division in the case of }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , Crim. No. CR96-00052A (D. Guam App. Div. July 3, 1997).}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [6]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The court has spoken to the issue of how Guam}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s trial courts are to treat issues which have not yet been addressed by this court.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 See}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Quenga}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 1997 Guam 6; }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Sumitomo Constr. v. Zhong Ye, Inc.}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 1997 Guam 8.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The People cite to }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Quenga}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 to indicate that the trial court erred in not following the established precedent set by }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 .}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Although we indicated that the Appellate Division opinions were to be binding upon the trial courts, the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Quenga}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 opinion also stated that such decisions are only persuasive and not controlling on this court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s interpretation of the law.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Quenga}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 1997 Guam 6, }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 13, n. 4.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 \tab [T]his Court does not recognize the decisions of the A ppellate Division as controlling our construction of law. We consider its opinion as precedent that is binding upon the trial courts of Guam, but these decisions, like those of the Court of Appeals, are considered persuasive authority when we consider an issue. In providing for a Supreme Court of Guam, Congress adopted a model that puts Guam on a par judicially with the several States, which grants this Court the authority to interpret Guam}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 s laws. The decisions of this Court will be reviewed in due time and course by the Supreme Court of the United States alone. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 See}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 48 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 1424\_2 (1994) (also providing a period of fifteen (15) years during which the Ninth Circuit C ourt of Appeals retains certiorari review of this Court}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 s decisions). . . . It should be underscored that the creation of the Supreme Court of Guam did not erase preexisting case law. Precedent that was extant when we became operational continues unless and until we address the issues discussed there. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13729104 We will not divert from such precedents unless reason supports such deviation}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 . . . . (emphasis added). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid13729104 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Quenga}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , 1997 Guam 6, }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 13, n. 4. }}}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In order to avoid a vacuum in the law, the court has espoused the philosophy that Guam}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s trial courts should continue to recognize Appellate Division decisions as binding precedent unless and until the Supreme Court has been presented with the opportunity to review and rule on those issues.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [7]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab We realize that trial courts may not always agree with precedent and, accordingly, apply their own independent reasoning to similar cases; however, trial courts rule against precedent at their own peril.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 \tab Though it is generally regarded improper for an inferior court to anticipate the overruling of a decision, there is no practical way of preventing it without penalizing the party for the precience [sic] of the judge. }{\b\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Thus the system of hierarchical obedience depends almost wholly on the good faith of the inferior courts}{\b\fs20\insrsid13729104 .\tab }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 (emphasis added). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 \par 1B M}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 OORE}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 supra}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 0.402[1]. \par }}}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Appellate courts are to review such rulings and the trial courts risk being summarily overturned in the process.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In this case, the trial court seemed to rule on the assumption that the justices of this court would follow its reasoning, as two of the current Justices on the Supreme Court had previously ruled similarly while sitting as trial court judges.}{ \insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Such reliance was a risk as there were no assurances that those two particular Justices would sit on the panel in this particular case.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The court in no way encourages the practice of ignoring precedent; however, the court will consider issues on review, determine the soundness of the reasoning, and, ultimately, formulate its own interpretation of the law.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{ \fs20\insrsid13729104 \tab Even a judgment of a lower court that is inconsistent with appellate decisions to which the lower court owes obedience, is nonetheless valid and enforceable unless it is reversed on appeal. Nor does the failure to follow binding precede nt guarantee reversal on review by a higher court for the appellee is free to argue that the reviewing court should overrule the precedent. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13729104 1B J}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 AMES}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 W}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 M}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 . M}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 OORE}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 E}{ \fs16\insrsid13729104 T}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 A}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 L}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 ., F}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 EDERAL}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 P}{\fs16\insrsid13729104 RACTICE}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 0.402[1] (1983).}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [8]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab We appreciate the fact that the trial court, in its Decision and Order, took great pains to explain why it was dismissing the case with prejudice, despite the precedent set by }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The trial court provided a thorough legal analysis of the issue and explained why the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 analysis should not be applied in the case now before us.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Such reasoning is necessary as it provides the court with a valid good faith basis as to why the trial court ruled in a manner inconsistent with precedent.}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 II.}{\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [9]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The case revolves around a prior trial court decision which was appealed to the District Court on the same issue of the People}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s compliance with 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In the case of the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , Crim. No. CR-96-00052A (D. Guam App. Div. July 3, 1997), the court reversed the Superior Court}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s ruling of dismissal with prejudice of misdemeanor charges after the People failed to file a complaint before the notice to appear date given to the defendant upon booking.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The statute provides as follows:}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Notice to Appear.}{\b\insrsid3560589 }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Where Delivered.}{\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The officer shall forthwith deliver the copy of the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney charged wi th the duty to prosecute the offense charged.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 At or before the time at which the person promised to appear, if the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should be prosecuted, he shall file the notice to appear and a complaint and affidavits which satisfy the requirements of }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 45.20 in the court in which the person has promised to appear.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 If the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should not be prosecuted he shall make a reasonable effort to notify the person arrested that the appearance will not be required.}{\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid8158890 \par }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The question the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 court addressed was whether section 25.30 creates a }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 de facto}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , Crim. No. CR96-00052A (D. Guam App. Div. July 3, 1997).}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The Appellate Division reasoned that although the code section was modeled after California Penal Code }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 853.6 (West 1956), case law interpreting section 853.6 was not helpful because of the later amendments to that statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Therefore, the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 court turned to the plain language of the statute and opined that the statute did not create a }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 de}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 facto}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Instead, the Appellate Division specified action to be taken on the disposition of the case in the event that a decision had been made prior to the notice to appear date.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Because of the creation by the Legislature of a one (1) year statute of limitations for all non-felonies}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 The prosecution of misdemeanors holds a statute of limitations of one year from the date the offense is committed. 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 10.30 (1993).}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , the court found that no further requirement was intended to be created beyond the existing one year limit.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [10]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The trial court below, in the }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 case, interpreted the statute differently by reading into it mandatory language of what action is required of the People before the notice to appear date.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Wakugawa}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , CM0071-96 (Super. Ct. Guam May 1, 1996).}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The trial court believed that reading the statute to provide discretionary authority on the part of the Government concerning whether and when to file a complaint and strictly adhering to the one year requirement of section 10.30 gives no effect to the language used in section 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Furthermore, the trial court indicated that the Guam Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of section 25.30 and that it accepted the philosophies or practic es of two of the sitting Justices, made while they were judges, to dismiss cases for failure to comply with section 25.30.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 Although the facts of the Superior Court cases over which the Justices presided are somewhat different , triggering other issues of speedy trial violations and non-compliance with other portions of section 25.30, the Justices consistently found that it was within their inherent powers to dismiss the case, even though the statute provided no specific remedy or authority to do so. The trial court, in }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 People v. Harris}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , CM0856-94 (Super. Ct. Guam, Mar. 9, 1995) (oral ruling), issued an oral ruling granting dismissal with prejudice for non-compliance with section 25.30. The facts of the case were similar to this one; however, the government filed the complaint about a week before the notice to appear date which had been set six months from the time of arrest. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 The defense argued that the defendant}{ \fs20\insrsid13729104 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 s due process rig hts were prejudiced and his right to a speedy trial was jeopardized due to the lengthy delay of time and the uncertainty of the defendant as to whether he was going to be prosecuted. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 Similarly, another trial court in }{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 People v. Song}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , CM0141-89 (Super. Ct. Guam May 20, 1993) (dismissal order) dismissed, with prejudice, the case based on the same reasoning as in the }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Harris}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 case. }{\insrsid13729104 \tab }}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [11]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The threshold issue, however, is a question of whether, in this case, there was actually a violation or a failure to comply with section 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The trial court discounted the Appellate Division}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s ruling in }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 on the basis that it had failed to recognize or address previous Guam Superior Court decisions.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Although not boun d by the Superior Court rulings, the Appellate Division completely disregarded them because they were not provided as part of the record on appeal.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , Civ. No. CR-96-00052A (D. Guam App. Div. July 3, 1997).}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In contrast, we find the analysis of the Superior Court cases to be persuasive.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [12]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Kapileo}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , CM0772-91 (Super. Ct. Guam May 6, 1996), the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure of the prosecution to comply with the mandatory terms of section 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 However, in }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Kapileo}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , the non-compliance focused on the amalgam of two separate and contravening methods of statutory criminal procedure for charging out a case which, although a procedural problem, results in substantive consequences.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The failure to do so in that case led the court to dismiss the action.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Id.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 See}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 also}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Lovan}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , CM0675-89 (Super. Ct. Guam June 29, 1990) (The court dismissed the action once again because of a failure to comply with the provisions of 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Although that case involved a speedy trial issue which resulted from the non-compliance, the trial court ruled that the non-compliance warranted dismissal).}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [13]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wakugawa}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , the Appellate Division did not look to California case law interpreting s ection 853.6 because it had later been amended to read differently than the current Guam law.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In this case, what the trial court espoused was the idea that it is important to look to the California law and to the subsequent amendment because such amendment was necessary to give meaning to the previously poorly constructed provision which acted to bar prosecution, as it would also in this case if we are to subscribe to its plain meaning.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The California court interpreted the statute, prior to the amendment, to bar prosecution for non-compliance with the statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Wallace v. Municipal Court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 140 Cal. App. 3d 100, 105, 189 Cal. Rptr. 886 (1983) (holding that section 853.6 provided a mandatory bar to prosecution regardless of any showing of actual prejudice).}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The effect of the amendment to the statute was to delete the barring provision.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Additionally, it provided a remedy for failure to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period to require the prosecution to file a separate citation or arrest warrant in order to further prosecute the individual.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 People v. Domagalski}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 214 Cal. App. 3d 1380, 1385, 263 Cal. Rptr. 249, 252 (1989).}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [14]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab Upon considering the Appellate Division}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s and the trial court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s analyses of the statute and the relevant case law, this court finds no error in the}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 trial court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s reasoning and interpretation of the applicable statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Two options are available to the People in choosing how to prosecute a case.}{ \insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 First they can proceed pursuant to 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 15.10 and 15.20 by filing a complaint with affidavits to establish probable cause so that a summons will issue.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In that event, section 10.30 would govern the time-line within which the case may be prosecuted.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Alternatively, the People may proceed pursuant to section 25.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Consequently, after issuing a notice to appear, the People are bound by the language of that statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The language of section 25.30 is clear.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The statute mandates action to be taken by the People prior to the notice to appear date}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 either to file the notice to appear and a complaint with affidavits or to make reasonable efforts to notify the defendant that he need not appear.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 While it is true that the decision on whether to prosecute a case is within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, this discretionary authority is not unlimited.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Instead, certain limitations are placed upon that discretionary authority as evidenced by both sections 25.30 and 10.30.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 As it is now, section 25.30 does establish a }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 de facto}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 statute of limitations.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s dismissal of this action essentially provides no remedy for the People to regain the power to prosecute the case.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Therefore, we hold that the trial court acted properly in dismissing the case against the Defendant-Appellee based on the People}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s failure to adequately comply with the mandates of 8 GCA }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30.}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 III.}{\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [15]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab The second issue is whether the court has the authority to dismiss a case with prejudice.}{ \insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In the absence of any other remedies, courts are able to fashion procedural rules they determine fair and just when }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 rights would be lost or the court would be unable to function.}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid3560589 }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 James H. v. Super. Ct. Of Riverside County}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , 77 Cal. App. 3d 169, 175, 143 Cal. Rptr. 398, 401 (1978).}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [16]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab In previous Superior Court cases which ordered dismissal with prejudice, speedy trial issues arose which gave rise to actual prejudice to the defendants.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 See Lovan}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , CM0675-89 (Super. Ct. June 29, 1990) (the trial court addressed a speedy trial issue and went through an analysis of the substantial prejudice to the defendant which was weighed heavily against the People).}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 In }{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Kapileo}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 , the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice; however, we view this remedy as ineffectual.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 It should also be noted that the defendant in}{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 Kapileo}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 was never recharged by the People for the same offenses in CM0772-91, although the case was dismissed without prejudice. We view this inaction to be due, at least in part, to the fact that such dismissal, even without prejudice, provided the People with no recourse under the statutory scheme. }}}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 CM0772-91 (Super. Ct. Guam May 6, 1996).}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [17]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab Although dismissal may have been the proper remedy in this case, dismissal with prejudice is generally a harsh result.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 However, the circumstances of this case warrant such dismissal.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 There is no question that section 25.30 acts to bar prosecution.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 This is precisely why California later amended its statutory scheme to provide both a remedy for non-compliance with Cal. Penal Code }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 853.6 and deletion of the barring provision of that same statute.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 To dismiss this case without prejudice is ineffective.}{\insrsid3560589 }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 By dismissing a case to begin with, the trial court cuts off any other possible remedy for prosecution that the People would have.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Under this court}{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s interpretation, the}{\i\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 de facto}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 statute of limitations had expired and, additionally, the statute of limitations prescribed by section 10.30 has long since expired as well.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 It is useless for a trial court to dismiss such a case without prejudice.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13729104 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13729104 The court is mindful of the fact that case law exists in which courts have addressed the issue of dismissals with prejudice as opposed to dismissals without prejudice.}{\i\fs20\insrsid13729104 See People v. Marada}{\fs20\insrsid13729104 , Crim. No. CR94-00070A, 1995 WL 604365 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 18, 1995). Because this situation invo lves a statutory bar to re-prosecution, a showing of prejudice or any other factors which support dismissal with prejudice are unnecessary. We need not and will not address dismissals which are not statutorily based at this time. }{\insrsid13729104 \par }}}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 Although a harsh result may occur, the problem exists not within the judicial system, but instead with the Legislature where the sole remedy lies in the amendment or repeal of section 25.30.}{ \insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 It is impossible for this court to make sense out of an ill-conceived statutory scheme.}{\insrsid8158890 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid8158890 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\b\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 [18]}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 \tab Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the trial court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s decision dismissing the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid3560589 }{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 The court}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 s ruling in this case shall have bearing on all pending cases and future matters which fall under 8 GCA }{ \insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 25.30. }{\insrsid3560589 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justice\tab \tab JANET HEALY WEEKS, Associate Justice}{\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid3560589 {\insrsid3560589 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8158890 {\insrsid13729104\charrsid3560589 PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice \par }}