{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff41\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f41\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}
{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\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 \f41\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 \rsid8351182
\rsid9508377\rsid10697224\rsid12090213\rsid12718580}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr9\min27}{\version4}
{\edmins7}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords3302}{\nofchars18823}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws22081}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb720 
\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\rsidroot12090213 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12090213 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12090213 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12090213 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12090213 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12090213\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 People v. Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid12090213 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid10697224 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  of 11
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid10697224 
{\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\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\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\pararsid8351182 
\f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 PEOPLE OF GUAM}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ,}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee,
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 v}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 .}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 MARK BAMBA ANGOCO}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ,}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par Defendant-Appellant.}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 OPINION}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Supreme Court Case No.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 CRA03-003
\par Superior Court Case No. CF0428-94}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Cite as:}{\b\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 2004 Guam 11}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Filed: June 17, 2004}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 15, 2003
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\f0\ul\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 :
\par Rosetta L. San Nicolas 
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General of Guam
\par Suite 2-200E, Guam Judicial Center
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\f0\ul\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 :
\par Howard Trapp, Esq.
\par 200 Saylor Street
\par 139 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 BEFORE:}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Justice }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Pro Tempore}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 .}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\super\insrsid12090213 1}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  Retired Chief Justice Benjamin J.F. Cruz was appointed to this appeal as Justice }{\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 Pro Tempore}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213 .  After the oral argument, Justice Cruz became disqualified from participating in this proceeding and Retired Chief Justice Peter C. Siguenza, Jr. was appointed Justice Pro Tempore to replace him.}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [1]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Defendant-Appellant Mark Bamba Angoco (}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ) appeals from the trial court}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s denial of his motion to dismiss his retrial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco was previously tried and convicted for felony aggravated murder.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
However, he successfully overturned the conviction by writ of habeas corpus based upon the ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel. The People of Guam (}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
) then sought to retry Angoco and he moved to dismiss arguing that retrial was barred by collateral estoppel and double jeopardy.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The trial court denied Angoco}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s motion and he appealed.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
We find that Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s retrial will not offend collateral estoppel or double jeopardy principles and hold that Angoco may be retried for felony aggravated murder.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 I.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [2]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab 
On January 18, 1995, Angoco was indicted for aggravated murder (intentional with premeditation), felony aggravated murder (with robbery as the underlying felony), robbery, and other charges.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Upo
n submission of the evidence to the jury,}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of negligent homicide within the felony aggravated murder charge.}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The jury found Angoco guilty of felony aggravated murder.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 However, the
 jury acquitted Angoco of intentional and premeditated aggravated murder, the robbery cha}{\f0\insrsid8351182 rge and the remaining offenses.}{\f0\insrsid12090213 
\par }{\f0\insrsid8351182\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [3]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco appealed, arguing in part that his acquittal for robbery required the reversal of the felony aggravated murder conviction.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The District Court Appellate Division rejected Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s argument and upheld the conviction.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , Crim. No. 95-00094A, 1996 WL 875777 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 16, 1996).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 In an unpublished decision, }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 131 F.3d 147 (9th Cir.1997), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Appellate Division}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s decision without prejudice as to a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [4]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The Superior Court granted the petition and issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus ordering the People to discharge Angoco 
unless it instituted proceedings to retry Angoco on the felony aggravated murder charge within thirty (30) days of the writ becoming final.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , SP0039-98 (Super. Ct. Guam June 17, 1999).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The People appealed and in Supreme Court Civil Appeal CVA99-024, this court held that the failure of Angoco}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s counsel to raise the issue of lesser-included offense instruction for the felony aggravated murder charge on appeal, and the trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s failure to }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 sua sponte }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 provide the instruction, amounted to}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
prejudicial error.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 17, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  22.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [5]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab On October 19, 2001, the People filed a motion to set trial for the retrial of Angoco.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Angoco filed a motion to dismiss the charge arguing that further prosecution would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The trial court denied Angoco}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s motion stating:}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
to prove felony aggravated murder the prosecutor must establish that the death of another human being was caused during the commission of a felony . . . .}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
The felony does not have to be the robbery as long as the death was caused during the commission of a crime and that crime is a felony.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Thus, the prosecution will not be precluded from retrying the Defendant on a different theory than that used in the original trial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 This Court holds that since the prosecution has in good faith argued that i
t will retry the Defendant on a different theory than that used in the original trial, the Defendant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s motion to dismiss is denied.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par Record on Appeal, tab 443, pp. 4-5 (Decision and Order).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco appealed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 II.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [6]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab This appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Title 7 GCA }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 3108(b) grants this court discretionary appellate jurisdiction over orders, other than final judgments, to }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [p]rotect a party from substantial and irreparable injury.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Title 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  3108(b)(2) (1994).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 In }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Abney v. United States}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , the United States Supreme Court reasoned that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
the rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Abney v. United States}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 431 U.S. 651, 660 (1977).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  
}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The harm to Angoco, would be irreparable because undergoing a trial that should be barred on double jeopardy grounds cannot be remedied.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id. }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 at 662.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Thus, pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  3108(b)(2), this court hereby exercises its discretion and considers this appeal as an interlocutory matter.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 III.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [7]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco argues that retrial is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and because this court did not order a new trial in }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 17.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopar
dy or collateral estoppel grounds is reviewed }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 de novo}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 .}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 United States v. James}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, 109 F.3d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1997). 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [8]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
[T]he application of collateral estoppel to criminal cases [is] an embodiment of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ,}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 1999 Guam 19, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  12 (citing }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Ashe v. Swenson}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, 397 U.S. 436, 445, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1195 (1970)).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  court further noted:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Collateral estoppel, which applies to relitigation of factual issues, is analytically distinct from double jeopardy, which applies to retrial of offenses.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Thus, collateral estoppel is conceptually separate from double jeopardy, but . . . when applicable, it is a component of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  at }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 15 n.11 (quoting }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Santamaria}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 884 P.2d 81, 84 (Cal. 1994)).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Thus, in our }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 de novo}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  review, we examine Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s collateral estoppel and double jeopardy issues separately. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 A.\tab Collateral Estoppel}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [9]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Collateral estoppel }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 1999 Guam 19 at }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  12 (quoting }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Ashe v. Swenson}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 (1970)).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Angoco argues that he can only be retried for the offense upon which he was originally indicted and found guilty,}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 felony murder based on criminal negligence.}{
\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 2}{\insrsid12090213  }{
\fs20\insrsid12090213 The indictment states: }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
On or about the 29th day of October, 1994, in the Territory of Guam, MARK BAMBA ANGOCO and JOHN JUNIOR PANGELINAN, with }{\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 criminal negligence}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 , caused the death of another human being, that i
s, Darwin Datuin, during the commission of the felony of robbery . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213   Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s Excerpts of Record, p. 2 (Superceding Indictment) (emphasis added).}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco stat
es that he was acquitted of aggravated murder and its lesser included offenses of murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 He further states that pursuant to Title 9 GCA }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  16.60, criminal negligence is an e
lement of negligent homicide and therefore his acquittal of negligent homicide equates to a finding of no criminal negligence.}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 3}{\insrsid12090213  }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 Section 16.60 states in part: }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed by criminal negligence.}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213   Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  16.60 (1993).}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  Thus, Angoco argues that because the issue of criminal negligence was previously litigated and decided in his acquittal of negligent homicide, the issue cannot be retried.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 We disagree.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [10]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies is determined by a three part test:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 (1)\tab An identification of the issues in the two actions fo
r the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify invoking the doctrine;
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 (2)\tab an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 litigated}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  in the first case; and
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 (3)\tab 
an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  at }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 13 (citations omitted).}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 4}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213  Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s Briefs fail to identify this test for collateral estoppel.}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 It is Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s burden to prove that the issue he seeks to foreclose was decided in the first proceeding.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\i\f0\insrsid12090213 
\par }{\f0\insrsid8351182\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [11]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Part one of the }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 test requires a determination that the issue of criminal negligence that was considered in the first trial is the same issue of criminal negligence that will be considered in the retrial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Because Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s retrial would be for the same charge that was overturned on appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the issue of criminal negligence as an element of that charge will not have changed.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Thus, the issues of criminal negligence are sufficiently similar and material to justify invoking the doctrine.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See id}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 . 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [12]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Parts two and three of the }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  test require our review of 
the record to determine whether the issue was }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 litigated}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  and }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 necessarily decided.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco argues that his acquittal of negligent homicide decided the underlying element of criminal negligence.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 We disagree.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [13]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Aside from the verdict form showing that the jury found him not guilty of negligent homicide, Record on Appeal, tab 
188 (Verdict Form 4), Angoco has not provided this court with a sufficient record for a proper examination under the }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  test.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco designated only the superceding indictment and verdict forms from the original trial, and the motions filed subsequent to this court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s ruling in }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 17.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  Record on Appeal, tab 454 (Defendant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Amended Designation of Clerk}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s Record filed June 20, 2003).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Moreover, Angoco did not provide transcripts of any of the proceedings below in the instant case or from the original trial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  Docket Sheet, Seq. 448 (Defendant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Certificate of }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 No Transcript}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  and Statement of Issues).
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [14]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab We note Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s argument that the People conceded the issue of criminal negligence in the prior appeal brought before this court by admitting that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict for negligent homicide.}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appellant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Reply Brief, p. 7 n.1 (}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
the government has conceded not just that the jury found Angoco not guilty of negligent homicide . . . but that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [t]here was no evidence to support verdict of guilty for Negligent Homicide.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ) (quoting the government}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s opening brief in }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , CVA 99-024).}{
\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 5}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
 The government}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s opening brief in CVA99-024 states in relevant part: }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 Angoco cannot establish any possible prejudice as a result of Trial Counsel}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s failure to raise the issue of the [lesser included offense] on appeal.  There was no evidence to support [ ] a verdict of guilty for Negligent Homicide.  Therefore, it was not a lesser included offense of [a]ggravated 
}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 Felony}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213  murder . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213   Government}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s Opening Brief, CVA99-024.}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s argument is not convincing.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
The issue in the prior appeal, CVA99-024, was whether the failure to instruct on the issue of the lesser included offense of felony murder was reversible error.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Whether the acquittal of negligent homicide collaterally estopped a conviction of felony murder was not at issue.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Thus, the context in which the People}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s statement that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 there was no evidence to support a verdict of guilty for Negligent Homicide}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  must be considered against this backdrop.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  id. It is Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s express burden under }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 to produce the portions of the record which demonstrate that the issue of criminal negligence was litigated before, and necessarily decided by, the jury.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See San Nicolas}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 1999 Guam 19 at }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  13.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Merely providing a jury verdict form and citing to a footnote in a brief filed in the prior appeal concerning different issues do not meet the burden.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [15]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Moreover, in the original trial, despite the acquittal on the negligent homicide lesser included offense, Angoco was convicted of felony aggravated mur
der based on criminal negligence.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Thus, the jury}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s verdicts in this regard were inconsistent.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
As noted above, in his appeal to the District Court Appellate Division, Angoco argued that his conviction for felony aggravated murder was inconsistent with his acquittal on the underlying robbery charge.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 1996 WL 875777, at **6. The District Court Appellate Division found that there was sufficient evidence to support Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s conviction for felony aggravated murder, and rejected Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s argument that the guilty verdict on the felony aggravated murder charge was flawed because it was inconsistent with the verdict of acquittal on the robbery charge.}
{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  at **5, 6.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
In so holding, the Appellate Division cited the United States Supreme Court in stating that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
a criminal defendant is precluded from attacking a conviction on one count of an indictment based on his inconsistent acquittal upon an entirely separate count.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 (citing }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 United States v. Powell}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 469 U.S. 57, 105 S. Ct. 471 (1984)).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Therefore, although Angoco was acquitted of neglige
nt homicide, which carries a mental state of criminal negligence, because he was also convicted of felony aggravated murder, which also carries a mental state of criminal negligence, we cannot conclude that the jury in the original trial }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 necessarily decided}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  the issue of criminal negligence in the context of Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s acquittal on the negligent homicide charge. Where verdicts are inconsistent, collateral estoppel may be inapplicable.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
See Powell}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 469 U.S. 57,}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 69, 105 S.Ct. 471, 478 (1984) (stating that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [t]he problem is that the same jury reached inconsistent results; once that is established [,] principles of collateral estoppel\_\_
which are predicated on the assumption that the jury acted rationally and found certain facts in reaching its verdict\_\_are no longer useful.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ).
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [16]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab We find that Angoco fails to meet his burden under the three-part }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 test and thus has not proven that collateral estoppel bars his retrial.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10697224 {\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 B.\tab Double Jeopardy}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [17]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco next argues that retrial is barred by the double jeopardy clause.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Specifically, Angoco argues that retrial is barred by Title 8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  65.30(b) and Title 9 GCA }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  1.26.}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 6}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  Section 65.30 provides in relevant part:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 (b)  Except as otherwise provided by }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
 65.35, a defendant shall not be subject to separate trials for multiple offenses based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal e
pisode, if such offenses are known to the prosecuting attorney at the time of the commencement of the first trial.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  65.30(b) (1993).  Section 1.26 provides in relevant part:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 A prosecution of a defe
ndant for a violation of a different provision of the statutes or based on different facts than a former prosecution is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 (a) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 1.24 and the subsequent prosecution is for:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 (1) any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the first prosecution;
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 (2) any offense of which the defendant should have been tried on the first prosecution under Subsection (b) of }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 65.30 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless the court ordered a separate trial of the charge of such offense; or
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
(3) the same conduct, unless (A) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law def
ining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil . . . .   
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12090213 Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  1.26 (1993).}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  These statutes apply the United States Constitution}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause to Guam.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Gill}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 59 F.3d 1010, 1012, n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The protection provided by the Double Jeopardy Clause is made applicable to the Territory of Guam through 48 U.S.C. }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  1421b(u), 8 Guam Code Ann. }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  65.30(b), and 9 Guam Code Ann. }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  1.24, 1.26.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 see also People v. San Nicolas}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001Guam 4, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  8 (stating that the double jeopardy clause is made applicable to Guam by the Organic Act).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, and it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Ohio v. Johnson}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 467 U.S. 493, 498, 104 S. Ct. 2536, 2540 (1984); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 see also People v. Palisoc}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, 2002 Guam 9, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  35; }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 4, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  8.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [18]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco argues that Title 8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  65.30 absolutely bars any retrial of Angoco because }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
the government does not seek a separate trial based on different conduct . . . [or] arising from a different criminal episode}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 and that Title 9 GCA }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 1.26 bars the retrial because it is }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 for an offense of which Angoco should have been tried on the first trial.}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appellant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Opening Brief, pp. 6 and 8.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [19]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab These arguments ignore the }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 general rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the retrial of a defendant who has succeeded in getting his conviction set aside for error in the proceedings below.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See Lockhart v. Nelson}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 488 U.S. 33, 39, 109 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1988).}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
[I]t is consistent with the guarantee against double jeopardy to retry a defendant who has succeeded in obtaining reversal of his conviction based on trial errors . . . .}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 State v. Koedatich}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 572 A.2d 622, 625 (N.J. 1990).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The United States Supreme Court stated: }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 United States v. Tateo,}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  377 U.S. 463, 466, 84 S. Ct. 1587, 1589 (1964).
}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\super\insrsid12090213 7}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
 We note that the People committed no error giving rise to the issues in this appeal.  The error was committed by Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
s previous counsel and by the trial court in the original trial.}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [20]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab However, if the reve
rsal is for insufficient evidence, retrial is barred by the double jeopardy clause because such a ruling is in effect a ruling that the evidence was so lacking that the trial court should have acquitted the defendant rather than submitting the case to the
 jury.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Lockhart, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 488 U.S. at 39, 109 S. Ct. at 290 (citing }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Burks v. United States}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 437 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 2141 (1978)); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 see also People v. Sangalang}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 18, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  31 (distinguishing between a reversal for insuf
ficient evidence, which bars a retrial, and a reversal because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, which does not bar a retrial).
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [21]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab For trial errors other than a conviction based on insufficient evidence, this court has reversed convictions and remanded the charges for retrial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  
}{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See People v. Jung}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 15, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  60 (reversal of conviction and remand due to trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s failure to properly instruct the jury); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Quintanilla}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, 1998 Guam 17 (reversing the conviction and remanding for further proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Reyes,}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 1999 Guam 11 (reversing the conviction and remanding for new trial due to the People}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s failure to disclose evidence);}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Sangalang}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 18 at }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  31(reversing the conviction and remanding for retrial due to the verdict being against the weight of the evidence).
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [22]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab In the instant case, the reversal of Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s felony murder conviction was for ineffective assistance of counsel.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 A retrial after this type of reversal does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 See People v. Navarro}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 562 N.E.2d 987, 988 (Ill. App. 1990) (stating that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 concepts of double jeopardy do not prohibit a new trial where the procedure in the initial trial was flawed by the ineffective assistance of counsel}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 ); }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 see also Pennycuff v. State}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 727 N.E.2d 723, 733 (Ind. App. 2000), }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 rev}{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 d on other grounds}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 745 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. 2001).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
If retrial was barred after a reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
any defendant no matter how guilty could escape a retrial by his or her attorney feigning incompetency.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Navarro}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 562 N.E.2d at 988.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [23]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab In }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Murray}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, the defendant was indicted on charges of intentional murder, felony murder based on robbery, and robbery.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Murray}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, 92 A.D.2d 617, 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
The trial court dismissed the robbery charge for insufficient evidence, and submitted the remaining charges and an additional charge of attempted robbery to the jury.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The jury acquitted Murray of intentional murder, but was hung on the felony murder and attempted robbery charges.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 In holding that the retrial for felony murder based on robbery or attempted robbery was not barred by double jeopardy principles, the court stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid10697224 {\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s decision at the first trial to withdraw the first degree robbery count from the jury}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s consideration on account of insufficient evidence was equivalent to an acquittal and barred further prosecution of that count.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
However, double jeopardy principles did not bar a new trial on the felony murder count. . . .}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [T]he completion of the underlying felony is not an essential element of felony murder.}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The two crimes are }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 substan
tively and generically entirely separate and disconnected offenses}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
 so that an acquittal of the underlying felony is not inconsistent with a conviction of felony murder.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Id. }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 (citations omitted (quoting }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 People v. Berzups}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 402 N.E.2d 1155, 1160 (N.Y. 1980).}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Murray}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  case is similar to the one at bar.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
However, the application of double jeopardy to bar a retrial in Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s case is made even more remote because he was }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 convicted}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  of felony murder based on robbery, whereas, the jury in }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Murray}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  was hung on the felony murder charge.
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [24]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab We hold that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not bar the retrial of Angoco for felony aggravated murder.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10697224 {\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 C.\tab Retrial Was Ordered}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [25]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab In his Reply Brief, Angoco raises the issue that he cannot be retried because the Supreme Court, in }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 17, did not order a new trial or direct a retrial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Appellant}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Reply Brief, pp. 1-2.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco argues that the affirmance was merely of the trial court}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s granting of habeas corpus relief.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Angoco misinterprets our holding.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 We held that }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [t]he trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
decision}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  granting Angoco habeas corpus relief is affirmed.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{
\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , 2001 Guam 17 at }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  22 (emphasis added).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 This holding affirmed the trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s order in its Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus which stated
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid10697224 {\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 It is ordered that Eduardo C. Bitanga, Director of Corrections, Government of Guam, or whosoever may have the custody of}{
\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 . . . the body of petitioner, Mark Bamba Angoco, shall discharge petitioner, Mark Bamba Angoco, from custody insofar as he is held in custody by virtue of his conviction of the }{
\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 second charge (felony aggravated murder) of the superceding indictment filed on January 18, 1995}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
, in People of the Territory of Guam vs. Mark Bamba Angoco, Case No. CF 428-94 in this Court, unless the Government of Guam shall institute proceedings to retry petitioner, Mark Bamba Angoco, }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 on such charge}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  . . . . 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Angoco v. Bitanga}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 , SP0039-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Corpus June 17, 1999) (emphasis added).}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
Thus, by affirming the trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s decision, Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s retrial on }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 the second charge (felony aggravated murder) of the superceding indictment filed on January 18, 1995}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  was implicitly ordered by this court in 2001 Guam 17.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Therefore, retrial was ordered and is limited to this specific charge.}{
\cs15\f0\super\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f41\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12090213 8}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
 Because we hold that Angoco can only be retried on the felony murder charge as specified in the indictment, we need not address the People}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213 s argument that it may proceed with a felony murder charge based on a different underlying felony.  We note however, that if double jeopardy prohibited Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 s retrial for felony murder based on robbery, Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213  1.26(a)(3)(A), }{\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 supra}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
, would not provide the People with an exception for a felony murder based on attempted robbery.  Attempted robbery is a lesser-included offense of robbery and is proved by the same facts necessary for robbery.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 See}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213  Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  105.58(b)(2) (stating that a lesser included offense }{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 consists of an attempt or solicitation to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 ).  Moreover, attempted robbery involves the intent to commit robbery.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid12090213 See}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  Title 9 GCA }{
\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213  13.10 (}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid12090213 A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to engage in conduct which would constitute such crime . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12090213 ).  Thus, the laws prohibiting robbery and attempted robbery address the same harm or evil, the unlawful deprivation of the property of another}{\insrsid12090213 .}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10697224 {\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 IV.}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8351182 {\b\f0\insrsid10697224 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [26]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab In his first trial, Angoco was acquitted of negligent homicide, which contains the el
ement of criminal negligence; however, he was convicted of felony murder based on criminal negligence and robbery.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 Under the }{\i\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 San Nicolas}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  collateral estoppel test, Angoco failed to prove that criminal negligence was }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 litigated}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  and }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 necessarily decided}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  in the first trial.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 We hold that Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s retrial is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.}{\f0\insrsid12090213 
\par }{\f0\insrsid10697224\charrsid8351182 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 [27]}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 \tab Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
s conviction for felony aggravated murder was overturned on account of the ineffective assistance of counsel.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 We hold 
that a retrial of Angoco after a reversal due to such trial error does not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 
and on retrial Angoco must be retried on the charge as it is specified in the superceding indictment.}{\f0\insrsid8351182  }{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 The trial court}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Decision and Order denying Angoco}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 s Motion to Dismiss is }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 AFFIRMED}{\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  on other grounds. This matter is }{\b\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182 REMANDED}{
\f0\insrsid12090213\charrsid8351182  for retrial consistent with this Opinion.
\par }}