On Dec. 11, 2015, the Supreme Court issued Commonwealth v. Rios, 2015 MP 12, affirming Anthony P. Rios\u2019 convictions, sentences, and probation revocation. On appeal, Rios argued the trial court judge erred by (1) partially recusing himself from sentencing in Rios\u2019s 2013 conviction for disturbing the peace and assault and battery, (2) refusing to order a presentence investigation report at the 2012 probation revocation hearing, and (3) miscalculating the sentence at the probation revocation hearing.<\/p>\n
In 1997, Rios pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual abuse of a child, two counts of oral copulation, and one count of rape and was sentenced to five years imprisonment, a 40-year suspended sentence, and 45 years of probation. After his release from prison in 2003, Rios reoffended and was sentenced to 10 years, five of which were suspended, with five years of probation upon release. In 2012, Rios reoffended again and was charged with two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, two counts of assault and battery, and two counts of disturbing the peace. Based upon those charges, the Commonwealth sought to revoke Rios\u2019 probation in both the 1997 and 2003 cases. Before revoking his probation, the trial judge presiding over the revocation hearing\u2014different from the one who had presided over the 1997 and 2003 cases\u2014denied Rios\u2019 request for a presentence investigation report. The trial judge sentenced Rios to the maximum 40-year sentence for the 1997 case and five-year sentence for the 2003 case, to be served consecutively.<\/p>\n
While serving his revocation sentence, Rios was charged with one count of disturbing the peace. With the same judge presiding, the court found Rios guilty and sentenced him to six months imprisonment, running concurrently with the revocation sentence. At sentencing, the judge admonished Rios: \u201cBe mindful that if there are future offenses that you\u2019re convicted on, the court may entertain\u2026making you serve those sentences\u2026consecutively\u2026\u201d More than a month later, Rios asked the judge to recuse from presiding over his final pending case. The case went to trial six days later, and Rios was convicted of one assault and battery and disturbing the peace. After reading the verdict, the judge recused from sentencing.<\/p>\n
The high court ruled that Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho did not err by recusing only from sentencing. In paragraph 28 of the opinion, the high court commented: \u201c[j]udges must be vigilant\u2026to ensure that their remarks are evenhanded. When comments cause additional litigation, they undermine the very ideals of judicial efficiency they are intended to promote.\u201d Although the trial judge\u2019s remarks may not have been prudent, the remarks did not require his disqualification from other proceedings. The high court also determined that the trial court need not order a presentence investigation report when executing a suspended sentence following probation revocation. Last, the high court ruled that the trial court properly calculated Rios\u2019 total revocation sentence.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court\u2019s full opinion is available at http:\/\/www.cnmilaw.org\/supreme15.html. (NMI Judiciary)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On Dec. 11, 2015, the Supreme Court issued Commonwealth v. Rios, 2015 MP 12, affirming…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[292,139],"class_list":["post-216638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-mp","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}