The CNMI Supreme Court has sanctioned the CNMI government for filing a frivolous appeal over the acquittal of former education commissioner Dr. Rita A. Sablan in a traffic case.<\/p>\n
The justices ordered the Office of the Attorney General pay the high court\u2019s clerk $150 as sanction and Sablan $150 in single cost incurred in the appeal.<\/p>\n
The justices dismissed the government\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n
Because Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho did not invalidate a statute but merely clarified the term \u201cowned or leased,\u201d the Commonwealth had no right to appeal Camacho\u2019s judgment, said the high court opinion penned Friday by Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and concurred by Associate Justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the justices said, they find the government\u2019s appeal frivolous as it had no prospect of succeeding on the merits.<\/p>\n
In a footnote to their order, the justices said their decision does not foreclose the government\u2019s right to appeal a criminal case where a statute had been held invalid.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the future, the Commonwealth is recommended to state in its notice of appeal that it is seeking a bifurcated appellate review on a point of law from a judgment of acquittal,\u201d the justices said.<\/p>\n
At a bench trial last April 27, Camacho found Sablan not guilty of the violation of restriction upon use of government vehicles such as driving a government vehicle that does not bear a government license plate, driving an unmarked government vehicle, and operating a government vehicle with tinting on its windows. <\/p>\n
In granting Sablan\u2019s motion for acquittal, Camacho found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the car being driven by Sablan is a government vehicle as defined in the Traffic Code, requiring a lease of 12 months or more.<\/p>\n
Camacho ruled that because the lease agreement was expired, the law no longer requires the car to be considered a government vehicle. Because the car was no longer a government vehicle, it was no longer required to display a government license plate and markings and removal of tinting material.<\/p>\n
The vehicle in question, a four-door 2011 Honda Accord sedan, is registered to \u201cJoeten Motor Dept.\u201d and leased to the Public School System.<\/p>\n
The government appealed the judgment of acquittal. Subsequently, Sablan, through assistant attorney general Brien Sers Nicholas, sought to have the appeal dismissed and the government sanctioned.<\/p>\n
Nicholas argued that the appeal is frivolous because a judgment of acquittal is not appealable.<\/p>\n
In response, the government, through assistant attorney general Matthew C. Baisley, moved for a voluntary dismissal of the appeal and opposed Sablan\u2019s motion for sanctions.<\/p>\n
Baisley argued that the appeal is not frivolous because the statute allows the government to appeal on a point of law without seeking reversal of an acquittal.<\/p>\n
Baisley argued that Camacho invalidated the term \u201cor leased\u201d in the statute as applied by \u201crequiring ownership in all cases, either actual ownership, or constructive ownership accomplished by entering into a lease agreement of sufficient duration.\u201d<\/p>\n
In dismissing the appeal, the justices said they find no merit to the government\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n
The justices said Camacho did not hold Section 7406(a)(2) unconstitutional when applied to Sablan\u2019s situation.<\/p>\n
Section 7406(a)(2) defines government vehicle as a \u201cvehicle owned or leased by the Commonwealth government or any of its branches or political subdivisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The justices said Camacho merely engaged in a statutory interpretation to determine whether Sablan\u2019s conduct violated the statutes.<\/p>\n
In so doing, the justices said, Camacho evaluated whether the vehicle in question was \u201cowned or leased\u201d by the government by construing \u201cowned or leased\u201d pursuant to the Vehicle Code.<\/p>\n
The justices said because Camacho did not invalidate Section 7406(2), but merely clarified the term owned or leased, the government had no right to appeal the judgment.<\/p>\n
The justices, however, stated that they do not decide whether Camacho did or did not accurately interpret Section 7406(a)(2). <\/p>\n
Sablan requested the high court to impose sanctions under the NMI Supreme Court Rule 38 because the appeal is frivolous. Under Rule 38, the high court may award damages including attorney fees and single or double costs to an appellee if they find an appeal frivolous.<\/p>\n
The justices said they are not persuaded Rule 38 sanction is appropriate.<\/p>\n
The justice said the government\u2019s appeal was to challenge Camacho\u2019s ruling on a question of law; it was not to reverse a finding of not guilty.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the justices said, Sablan had no personal stake in the appeal\u2014no actual or threat of injury\u2014and had no burden to defend it.<\/p>\n
\u201cTherefore, to the extent Sablan incurred costs in defending the appeal, those costs are hers to bear,\u201d the justices said.<\/p>\n
The justices said Sablan\u2019s costs could have been prevented had she given the Commonwealth an opportunity to identify the nature of the appeal in its docketing statement before moving to dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the justices said, they found the appeal frivolous, and concluded that some degree of sanction is warranted. By failing to properly specify the matter for appeal, the Commonwealth unnecessarily muddied the waters, the justices said. <\/p>\n
Thus, the justices said, Sablan\u2019s confusion and response in the face of the Commonwealth\u2019s action is reasonable.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the justices said, though Rule 38 sanction is not warranted as a matter of law, they invoke their inherent authority as an alternate ground to impose monetary sanctions against the Commonwealth for filing a frivolous appeal and deficient notice of appeal.<\/p>\n
The prosecution alleged that the lease of the car began Jan. 1, 2014, and Sablan was stopped by a police sergeant on Navy Hill on Jan. 15, 2015, so the government is legally the owner of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
Then-assistant attorney general Emily Cohen prosecuted the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The CNMI Supreme Court has sanctioned the CNMI government for filing a frivolous appeal over…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[162,11208,86,11209],"class_list":["post-239026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-car","tag-honda-accord","tag-oag","tag-traffic-code"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239026","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\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}