{\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};}
{\f38\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f43\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f44\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f46\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f47\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f48\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f49\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f50\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f51\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;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid6183918 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid6183918 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid474008\rsid1720187\rsid6183918\rsid9508377\rsid12788341\rsid13851840}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy13\hr10\min23}{\version5}{\edmins2}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords4186}{\nofchars23866}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws27997}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1350 \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\rsidroot474008 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid474008 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid474008 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid474008 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid474008 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1350\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid474008\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid474008 
People v. San Nicolas,}{\fs20\insrsid474008  Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid474008 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1720187 10}}}{\fs20\insrsid474008  of 16
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid474008 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1720187 
{\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\insrsid474008 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid474008 
\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\pararsid1720187 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 PEOPLE OF GUAM}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 vs.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 DONICIO M. SAN NICOLAS}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 OPINION
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Filed:}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 February 28, 2001}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 2001 Guam 4}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Supreme Court Case No. CRA00-0005
\par Superior Court Case No. CF0471-97}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on Feb. 8, 2001
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1720187 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\ul\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 :
\par Angela M. Borzachillo, Esq.
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par Prosecution Division
\par Ste. 2-200E, Judicial Ctr. Bldg.
\par 120 West O}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 :
\par Richard Parker Arens, Esq.
\par Cunliffe & Cook
\par A Professional Corporation
\par Ste. 200
\par 210 Archbishop Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1720187 
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 BEFORE:}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Chief Justice; PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., and F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justices.}{\insrsid1720187 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 CARBULLIDO, J.:}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [1]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Donicio M. San Nicolas (hereinafter }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 San Nicolas}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
) was indicted on two counts of Aggravated Murder (as a First Degree Felony), one count of Murder (as a First Degree Felony), one count of Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony), one count of Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony), and two co
unts of Child Abuse (as a Third Degree Felony).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 After a trial by jury, San Nicolas was convicted of the two counts of Child Abuse.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The trial court sentenced San Nicolas to three years imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 San Nicolas a
ppeals the sentence and argues that the lower court was required to impose concurrent sentences.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 We affirm the trial court}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s decision.

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 I.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [2]\tab }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 San Nicolas was indicted on charges that stemmed from an incident on July 27, 1997, wherein San Nicolas brought 
two minors, Christina San Nicolas and April Camacho, to the Lonfit River.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 While swimming under his supervision, the girls were swept downstream in a strong current.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 April escaped physically unharmed but emotionally shaken while Christina, San Nicolas}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  daughter, drowned.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Although knowing of the minors}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  perilous state and despite April}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
s pleas for help, San Nicolas did not attempt to help in a rescue attempt and is alleged to have held the girls}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  heads below the water.}{\insrsid474008 
\par }{\insrsid1720187\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [3]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab San Nicolas was acquitted of both the aggravated murder and murder charges as to Christina, and the attempted murder and aggravated assault charges as to April.}{\insrsid1720187  
}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 He was, however, convicted on the two Child Abuse counts, each charging that San Nicolas }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 knowingly, and unreasonably caused and permitted the physical, mental, and emotional health of [the child victim] to be endangered}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  while in his care and custody.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Appellant}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s Excerpts of R
ecord, tab 1, pp. 1-3 (Indictment, Oct. 29, 1997).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 One charge named April as a victim, and the other named Christina as the victim.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id.}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [4]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab On March 3, 1998, San Nicolas filed a Notice of Motion for Acquittal and Motion for Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdicts.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The trial court denied San Nicolas}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  motion.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Prior to sentencing, San Nicolas entered into an agreement with the Government, which was approved by the trial court, wherein he waived his right to appeal the convictions in exchange for the Government}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s promise to dismiss the two Aggravated Assault Charges and the two lesser-included Misdemeanor Assault charges.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
San Nicolas specifically reserved his right to appeal the sentence for the Child Abuse convictions.
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [5]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The trial court entered a judgment of the convictions on May 19, 2000.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The court sentenced San Nicolas to three years imprisonment for each count of Child Abuse, to be served consecutively.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 San Nicolas timely filed a Notice of Appeal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 II.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [6]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab This court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a final judgment of conviction pursuant to Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  130.15(a) (1993) and Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  3107 and 3108 (1994).
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 III.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [7]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in sentencing San Nicolas to consecutive terms of imprisonment where San Nicolas}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  acts during one criminal episode gave rise to two separate charges and convictions of Child Abuse.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 A.}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The Double Jeopardy Clause.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [8]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 U.S. C}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ONST. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 amend V.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The Bill of Rights of the Organic Act of Guam similarly provides that }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [n]
o persons shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of punishment . . . .}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  1421b(d) (1950); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
see also People v. Reyes}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 1998 Guam 32, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 23 (recognizing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution is made applicable to Guam through the Organic Act).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 It is well established that the Double Jeopardy Clause pro
tects against successive prosecutions as well as successive criminal punishments for the same crime.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. Ursery}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 518 U.S. 267, 273, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2139-40 (1996); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Hudson v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 522 U.S. 93, 99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 493 (1997).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 A double jeopardy claim is a question of law reviewed }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 de novo }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . . . .}
{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 People v. Florida}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, Crim. No. 96-00060A, 1997 WL 209044, at * 6 (D. Guam App. Div. Apr. 21, 1997); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 see also Reyes, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 1998 Guam 32 at }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  9 (reviewing }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 de novo }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
the constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Camacho v. Camacho}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 1997 Guam 5, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  24 (reviewing questions of law }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 de novo}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ).}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The legality of sentence is also reviewed }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 de novo}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. Farmigoni}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 934 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1991).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [9]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies a protection that is basic in concept, but difficult and complex in actual application.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
There is nearly universal agreement that an individual once tried for an offense should not be forced again to defend himself against the same charge.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 However, the application of the general principl
e and the scope of its protection have been fraught with inconsistencies.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 While the application of the double jeopardy law is quite complex, a few principles have emerged through case law.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 In determining whether multiple punishments violate the Double Jeopardy Clause courts look to the punishment authorized by the legislative branch.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
See Whalen v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 445 U.S. 684, 688, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1436 (1980).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies the principle that the power to define criminal offenses and impose punishment resides wholly with the Legislature, }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 see id.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 at 689, 100 S.Ct. at 1436, and is subject only to constitutional limitations under the Eighth Amendment.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Bell v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 349 U.S. 81, 82, 75 S.Ct. 620, 622 (1955).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The Legislatur
e is free to define crimes and fix punishments, and the double jeopardy guarantee is primarily aimed at restraining courts and prosecutors from acting contrary to legislative intent.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
See People v. Djekich}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 229 Cal. App. 3d 1213, 1223, 280 Cal. Rptr. 824, 830 (Ct. App. 1991).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Accordingly, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [t]he Double Jeopardy Clause at the very least precludes . . . courts from imposing consecutive sentences unless authorized by [the Legislature] to do so.}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Whalen}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 445 U.S. at 689, 100 S.Ct. at 1436.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Therefore, when determining whether the legislature has authorized that the defendant be punished twice for two violations of the same statute, we must discern the legislative intent.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. Weathers}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 186 F.3d 948, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Jones v. Thomas}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 491 U.S. 376, 381, 109 S.Ct. 2522, 105 L.Ed.2d 322 (1989).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 We review issues of statutory interpretation }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 de novo}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Pangelinan v. Gutierrez}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 2000 Guam 11, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  7; }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Ada v. Guam Telephone Authority}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 1999 Guam 10, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  10.
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [10]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Two distinct tests have emerged in determining whether the legislature intended to allow for cumulative punishments of statutory violations: (1) the }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test and (2) the }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
unit of prosecution}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See e.g. Whalen}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 445 U.S. at 691-92, 100 S.Ct. at 1437-38 (employing the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
test in determining whether multiple punishments are allowed when the defendant violates two statutes); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Ladner v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 358 U.S. 169, 177, 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 (1958) (employing th
e unit of prosecution test in determining whether multiple punishments are proper when the defendant commits two violations of the same statute).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
While both tests focus on legislative intent, there is a clear rule as to which test must be employed in determining whether multiple punishments are allowed for double jeopardy purposes. 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 1.}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The }{\b\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [11]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab When a statute is ambiguous regarding whether a violation of two different statutes constitutes separate offenses allowing for multiple punishme
nts, courts employ the rule of statutory construction set forth in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 (1932).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Whalen}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 445 U.S. at 691-92, 100 S.Ct. at 1437-38.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Court provided that}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
[w]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 two distinct statutory provisions}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test embodies the presumption that the Legislature }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Whalen}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 445 U.S. at 691-92, 100 S.Ct. at 1437-38}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
In other words, the test is used to determine whether the violation of two distinct statutes constitutes the }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 same offense}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, and if so, courts presume that the Legislature intends only one punishment for the violations.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  at 692, 100 S.Ct. at 1438.
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [12]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  applies only where the defendant is convicted of violating two distinct statutory provisions.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. Esch}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 832 F.2d 531, 541 (10th Cir. 1987).}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
In the instant case, San Nicolas was convicted of two violations of the same statute, namely, the Child Abuse statute; therefore, the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 test is inapplicable in determining whether consecutive sentences are proper.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Accordingly, the trial court}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s use of the }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test was improper. 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 2.}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
unit of prosecution}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [13]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Where the defendant is convicted of }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 two}{\b\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 violations of the same statute}
{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , courts determine }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 what act the legislature intended as the }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unit of prosecution}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  under the statute.
}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Weathers}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 186 F.3d at 366; }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 see Esch}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 832 F.2d at 541.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The relevant inquiry is }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 whether the conduct at issue was intended to give rise to more than one offense under the same [statutory] provision.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. McLaughlin}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 164 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Thus, the issue remains one of legislative intent, and courts look to the language of the statute and legislative history.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Landner}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, at 177, 79 S.Ct. at 214.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 If the legislative intent is ambiguous, rather than applying the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
principles, courts resort to the rule of lenity wherein }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 doubt will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  . . . .}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 McLaughlin}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 164 F.3d at 14-15 (quoting }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 United States v. Bell}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 349 U.S. 81, 84, 75 S.Ct. 620, 622 (1955) (clarifying that }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [i]n the }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unit of prosecution}{
\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  cases, although the ultimate question remains one of legislative intent, the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test is not used.}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ); }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 see Esch}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 832 F.2d at 540 (recognizing that the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test only applies when the defendant is convicted under two separate statutory provisions).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The legislature is the sole branch of the government empowered to define crimes and punishments, and a court must decline to increase a penalty on an individual when not clearly authorized by the legislature.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Ladner}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 358 U.S. at 178, 79 S.Ct. at 214.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
This reflects the presumption in the law that doubt as to legislative intent should be resolved in favor of the defendant, and thus against the imposition of a harsher punishment.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Bell}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 349 U.S. at 83, 75 S.Ct. at 622.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 B.}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Discussion.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [14]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab 
Because San Nicolas was charged with two violations of the same statute, the unit of prosecution analysis is the proper test to employ in determining whether he could be sentenced consecutively.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Because the trial court failed to make this analysis, we proceed to do so.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par In determining the relevant }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unit of prosecution}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  of the Child Abuse statute, we first look to the plain language of the statute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The Child Abuse statute provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
31.30. Child Abuse; Defined & }{\b\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Punished}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (a) A person is guilty of }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 child abuse}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  when:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (1)}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 he subjects a child to cruel mistreatment; or
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (2)}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 having a child in his care or custody or under his control, he:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (A)}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 deserts that child with intent to abandon him; 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (B)}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 subjects that child to cruel mistreatment; or
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (C)}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unreasonably causes or permits the physical or, emotional health of that child
 to be endangered. 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (b) Child abuse is a felony of the third degree when it is committed under circumstances likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Otherwise, it is a misdemeanor.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  31.30 (1994).
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [15]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab 
San Nicolas argues that resort must be made to the rule of lenity because the Child Abuse statute is ambiguous as to whether the Legislature intended to create multiple punishments for a single act affecting more than one victim.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Case law compels us to disagree.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Discussion of cases that conduct a }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unit of prosecution}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 inquiry is instructive in this regard.
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [16]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The seminal }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
unit of prosecution}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  case is }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Bell v. United States}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 In }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Bell}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , the defendant was convicted of violating a section of the Mann Act.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The relevant provisions of the Act provided: }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce . . . any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose . .
 . [s]hall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 349 U.S. at 82, 75 S.Ct. at 621 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The defendant transported two women, in the same car and on the same trip, across state lines in violation of the Act.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
He was charged and pled guilty to two separate counts of violating the Act, each referring to a different woman.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The defendant argued that he committed one offense and thus could not be subjected to cumulative punishments under the two counts.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The issue before the Supreme Court was }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [w]hat Congress has made the allowable unit of prosecution,}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  and specifically, whether }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Congress . . . [made] the simultaneous transportation of more than one woman in violation of the Mann Act liable to cumulative punishment for each woman so transported.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 349 U.S. at 81-83, 75 U.S. at 621-22 (citations omitted)}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The Court acknowledged that Congress may, at its discretion, set appropriate punishment for the commission of crimes, however, in that case, resort to the statute was of no avail.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The Court determined that the statute did not reflect any Congressional intent regarding the appropriate punishment for two separate violations of the Act.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Therefore, the court employed the rule of lenity, and determined that the defendant}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
s actions constituted one offense and punishment must be limited accordingly.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 349 U.S. at 83-84, 75 U.S. at 622. 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [17]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Similarly, in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Ladner v. United States}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , the defendant discharged a single shot 
from a shotgun into an automobile, wounding two police officers.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  358 U.S. at 170-71, 79 S.Ct. at 210.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
He was convicted of assaulting two federal officers with a deadly weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  254
, and was sentenced consecutively for each violation.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The statute provided:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any person . . . (if he is a federal officer designated in }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 253) while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or shall assault him on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be imprisoned not more than three years . . .}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 358 U.S. at 170, 79 S.Ct. at 210, n. 1.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
After serving the first of his consecutive sentences, the defendant made a motion to correct the second sentence.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 358 U.S. at 170, 79 S.Ct. at 210.}{\insrsid1720187 
 }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The issue before the Court was whether Congress intended that a single discharge of a shotgun to constitute one offense under the statute, or, in the alternative, a separate offense for each officer assaulted.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 358 U.S. at 173, 79 S.Ct. at 211.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The government argued that: }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The legislation was aimed at 
protecting federal officers, not only to promote the orderly functioning of the federal government . . . , but also to protect the individual officers . . . .}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Both of these legislative objectives make the individual officers a separate unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 358 U.S. at 174, 79 S.Ct. at 212 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The Court found that the plain language and legislative history of the statute were ambiguous regarding the appropriate unit of prosecution and thus refused to find that }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Congress intended that a single act of assault affecting two officers constitutes two offenses under the statute.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 358 U.S. at 176, 79 S.Ct. at 213.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Because of the ambiguity regarding Congress}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 intent, the Court applied the rule of lenity and interpreted the statute to mean that a single shot injuring two officers constituted a single violation of the statute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id. }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 358 U.S. at 177-78, 79 S.Ct. at 214. 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [18]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab In both }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Bell and Ladner}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, the Supreme Court determined that the language and history of the relevant statutes were ambiguous as to the appropriate unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 However, other courts have refused to find ambiguity in
 seemingly similar statutes.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 For instance, in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Missouri v. Whitley}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 382 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. 1964), the defendant caused an automobile accident in which three persons were killed.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  at 666.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The defendant was subsequently charged with three counts of manslaughter and was sentenced consecutively for each count.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 .}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing was invalid and that the court was limited to imposing one sentence for one offense resulting from the single accident.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The manslaughter statute provided in pertinent part: }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Every killing of a human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another . . . shall be deemed manslaughter.}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 666-67 (quoting M}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 O }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 R}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 EV }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 S}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 TAT.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  559.070 (1959).}
{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The appeals court upheld the sentences holding that the gravamen of the offense is the killing of 
a human being and that the statute, by its terms, contemplates that there shall be as many offenses as there were victims.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid1720187 . at 667.}{\insrsid474008 
\par }{\insrsid1720187\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [19]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Further, in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Utah v. James}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 631 P.2d 854 (Utah 1981), the defendant held five victims hostage during the commission of a robbery.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at 855.}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
He was charged and convicted of five counts of aggravated kidnapping.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The statute provided that a defendant commits a kidnapping if the defendant confines }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 the victim.}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at n. 2, }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
and}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  U}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 TAH}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  C}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ODE}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  A}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 NN. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  76-5-302 (1953).}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The defendant appealed the convictions, arguing that his actions constituted a single criminal act and thus only one violation of the statute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at 855.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The court emphasized that, in crimes against the person, a single criminal act can give rise to as many offenses as there are victims, as is made clear by the language of the statute which speaks in terms of the singular victim.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [20]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab In cases where the defendant}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
s single act injures more than one person, legislative intent as to the appropriate unit of prosecution can be gleaned by the descriptive words of the statute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See McKinney v. Alabama}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 511 So.2d 220, 224-25 (Ala. 1987) (citing R. Owens, }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Alabama}{\i\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
s Minority Status: A Single Criminal Act Injuring Multiple Persons Constitutes Only a Single Offense}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 16 C}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 UMB}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  L. R}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 EV}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 85, 105-07 (1985-86)).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Specifically, statutes using the word }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 any}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 compels a construction that only one conviction under the statute is allowed despite the number of victims.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at 225;}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 cf. United States v. Corbin Farm Service}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 444 F. Supp. 510, 530, n. 10 (E.D. Cal. 1978) (acknowledging that the Fifth Circuit has held that the use of the word }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 any}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 followed by a singular noun or pronoun in a statute, i.e. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 conceals any prisoner after his escape,}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 is not sufficient to show an intent that the number of violations equals the number of escapees) (citation omitted), }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 aff}{\i\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 d }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 By contrast, statutes using the singular words }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  or }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 another}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  reveal the intent that each victim be the appropriate unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See McKinney}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 511 So.2d at 225 (citing Owens, 16 C}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 UMB}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  L. R}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 EV}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . 105-07) (describing statutes which criminalize }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 abandoning a child}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 and }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 endangering the welfare of a child}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  as falling within the class of statutes which define each victim as the appropriate unit of prosecution).
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [21]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab We find that the plain language of the Child Abuse statute clearly evinces the legislative intent as to the proper unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The language of the statute refers to a person}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s actions with regard to }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a child.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Because the statute makes it a crime to subject }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a child}{
\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 to cruel and unusual treatment,}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 or to have }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a child}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
in his care or custody . . . [and] unreasonably cause . . . the physical or emotional health of }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 that child}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  to be endangered,}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  it is evident that the legislature intended that each separate child be the appropriate unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
9 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  31.30 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See McKinney}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 511 So.2d at 224-25;}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  cf.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Massachusetts v. Iacono}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
, 478 N.E.2d 144, 148-49 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (recognizing that where the statute speaks of the }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 person}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  is indicia that the number of victims measures the number of offenses). 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [22]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The Child Abuse statute is distinguishable from the statutes in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Bell}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  and }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Ladner}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , wherein the crimes were defined, respectively, as the taking of }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 any}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  woman or across state lines and the assaulting of }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 any}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  federal officer.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The use of the word }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 any}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 is not as clear an indication of the proper unit as the use of the term }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a child.}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 We decline to depart from the axiom of sta
tutory construction that the words of a statute be given their common, ordinary meaning.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See People v. Quichocho}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 1997 Guam 13, }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  15.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Therefore, like the statutes in }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 James}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  and }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Whitley}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , the use of the singular descriptive term }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 a}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 compels a construction that the legislature intended that each child victim be the appropriate unit of prosecution.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Because the legislative intent 
is unambiguous, it is unnecessary to resort to the rule of lenity.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [23]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab San Nicolas additionally argues that he engaged in a continuing course of conduct, and therefore 9 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  1.22(e) specifically acts as a limitation on imposing consecutive sentences.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The statute provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 1.22. Prosecution for Conduct Which Constitutes More Than One Offense.}{\b\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
When the same conduct of the defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (e) the offense is defined as a continuing course of conduct and the defendant}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s course of conduct was uninterrupted, unless the law provides that specific periods of such conduct constitute separate offenses.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  1.22(e) (1993) (emphasis added).
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [24]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab The statute specifically governs convictions, and not sentencing, therefore, it is questionable whether the statute applies in the context of sentencing.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Cf. Djekich}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 229 Cal. App. 3d 1213, 280 Cal. Rptr. 824 (analyzing the propriety of mult
iple sentencing under a statute which prohibited cumulative sentencing if the acts underlying the multiple violations constitutes a continuous course of action).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Moreover, section 1.22(e) speaks to crimes in which the unit of prosecution is the }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
continuous course of conduct.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
In other words, in accordance with section 1.22(e) the government cannot obtain more than one conviction if the statute criminalizes a course of conduct over a course of time as opposed to specific acts committed.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [25]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab It is within the legislature}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s discretion to define a crime in terms of a }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 course of conduct}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  as opposed to separate acts.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 612 F.2d 843, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1979).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The test is whether the statute prohibits individual acts, or instead, the course of action which they constitute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ; }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 284 U.S. at 301-02, 52 S.Ct. at 181}{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
If the former, then each act is punishable separately, if the latter, a court may only impose one penalty.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See Blockburger}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 284 U.S. at 302, 52 S.Ct. at 181.}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [26]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Courts have conducted an analysis of whether a statute proscribes a continuous course of conduct.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 For example, in }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , the defendant was convicted and sentenced consecutively on three separate counts of violating 18 U.S.C. }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  659 for three thefts of gasoline from an interstate pipeline system, tank, and storage facility.}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Johnson}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 612 F.2d at 844.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 The defendant challenged the sentence on the ground that the three thefts constituted a single, continuous transaction and thus o
nly one violation of the statute.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id.}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The court conducted a unit of prosecution analysis looking to whether the statutory language indicated that the legislature intended to proscribe distinct and separate acts as opposed a continuous course of conduct.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at 845-46.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The court determined that the plain language of the statute clearly showed that each theft would constitute a separate offense, and that the statute was not enacted to prohibit a }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 course of conduct.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 See id}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 . at 846.
\par }{\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [27]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab By contrast, the issue in the instant case is not whether San Nicolas}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  acts constitute a }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 continuous course of conduct}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 ; rather, we are concerned with the legislature}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
s intent to allow for multiple punishments where there are two victims.}{\i\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 There is a distinction between the continuous acts involved and the number of victims involved.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 We are not concerned with whether the Child Abuse statute makes San Nicolas}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
 course of action at the river one crime, as opposed to separately punishable crimes for t
he separate acts of leading the girls to the river, allowing them to get into the water, and failing to direct the children to get out of the water after appreciating the danger inherent in the situation.}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Here, San Nicolas was not charged with two separat
e counts of Child Abuse on the basis of distinct acts committed during the river episode, rather, he was charged separately on the basis that there were two different victims.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
San Nicolas argues that the act of leading the two girls to the river constituted the single act of child abuse.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Yet, even accepting this argument, the only issue remaining is whether the fact that there were two different victims validates the imposition of consecutive sentences.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
Thus, assuming the section 1.22(e) governs sentenci
ng, because the validity of consecutive sentencing turns on the number of victims, and not the continuous nature of the acts committed against each victim, the statute is inapplicable and thus does not limit the imposition of multiple sentences.}{
\insrsid474008 
\par }{\insrsid1720187\charrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [28]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab Bec
ause we find that the Child Abuse statute reflects the legislative intent to create a separate offense for each victim, we hold that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
In accordance with section 80.10(b) of Title 9 of the Guam Code Annotated, the trial judge had the discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [w]here the judgment of conviction included more than one crime . . . .}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  80.10(b) (1996).}{\insrsid1720187  }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Here, the judgment of conviction consisted of two offenses of Child Abuse and thus consisted of }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 more than one crime.}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 
The trial court, therefore, acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\b\insrsid1720187 
\par }{\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 [29]}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 \tab San Nicolas was convicted of two separate violations of the same statute, therefore, the trial court erroneously applied the }{\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Blockburger}{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  test in deciding whether to impose consecutive sentences.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 However, we find that the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper under the }{
\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 unit of prosecution}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  analysis.}{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 An appellate court may affirm the judgment of a lower court on any ground supported by the record, }{
\i\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 see generally Lujan v. Hemlani}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 , 2000 Guam 21 (affirming the trial court}{\insrsid12788341\charrsid1720187 '}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 s decision on other grounds), we therefore }{
\b\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 AFFIRM}{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187  the imposition of consecutive sentences.}{\insrsid1720187 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.\tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid1720187  }{\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 Associate Justice}{\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid1720187 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1720187 {\insrsid474008\charrsid1720187 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ
\par Chief Justice
\par }}