Source: http://openjurist.org/649/f2d/740/people-of-territory-of-guam-v-e-kingsbury
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 04:18:51
Document Index: 219484819

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1257', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1257', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 1424', '§ 272', '§ 1257', '§ 1257', '§ 1257', '§ 1291', '§ 272', '§ 272']

649 F2d 740 People of Territory of Guam v. E Kingsbury | OpenJurist
649 F. 2d 740 - People of Territory of Guam v. E Kingsbury HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 649 F.2d.
649 F2d 740 People of Territory of Guam v. E Kingsbury 649 F.2d 740
PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William E. KINGSBURY, Defendant-Appellant.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 17, 1980.Decided June 29, 1981.
We view the finality standard to be applied as analogous to the standard applied by the United States Supreme Court to test the finality of state court judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Under the standards traditionally applied to section 1257, the fact that a decision is a final decision of the highest state court does not necessarily mean that the decision is final for section 1257 purposes. Thus, the Supreme Court has generally refused to review a state appellate decision where further state court proceedings are pending. See, e. g., California Nat'l. Bank v. Stateler, 171 U.S. 447, 449, 19 S.Ct. 6, 7, 43 L.Ed. 233 (1898).
The Supreme Court has also held, however, that such decisions are final for section 1257 purposes where the claim on appeal has been finally litigated in a state appellate court and may not be raised on appeal again after the end of subsequent state proceedings. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 482, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). Appealability here therefore turns on whether Guam law requires a juvenile to question the propriety of standing trial as an adult before the trial takes place and precludes him from raising the issue on post-conviction appeal. The relevant Guam statutes and precedent do not provide a clear answer to this question. Guidance can be found, however, by examining judicial interpretations of similar statutes in other jurisdictions.
On the merits, the appellant's principal claim is that the failure of the juvenile court to make an investigation into motive was a denial of due process. In the context of juvenile certification procedures, due process requires the rights to counsel, to adequate notice and to a statement of reasons at a hearing to determine whether a juvenile is to be tried as an adult. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Harris v. Procunier, 498 F.2d 576 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 970, 95 S.Ct. 235, 42 L.Ed.2d 186 (1974). Those requirements were met in this case. A day-long hearing was held, attended by appellant, his mother and his counsel. A written decision was rendered and there is no claim of denial of access to records.
Appellant challenges only the failure to investigate into the reason behind the murder. The specific factors to be considered and the weight to be given to each, however, are discretionary. A list of factors is contained in a policy memorandum appended to Kent v. U. S., supra, 383 U.S. at 565, 86 S.Ct. at 1059, and quoted by the district court in this case. These factors include: the seriousness of the crime; whether it was violent or premeditated; whether the crime resulted in personal injury; the prosecutive merit of the complaint; the sophistication of the juvenile; prior record and contacts with the youth authority; and the prospects for rehabilitation. It is clear that the juvenile court took these considerations into account. While investigation into motive may be advisable in some cases, the serious nature of the crime, the premeditation and sophistication involved in this murder, and the fact that appellant would be subject to juvenile jurisdiction for only two months justified certification in this case.
At least since Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), and as recently as Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981), the Supreme Court has carefully described the considerations relevant to determining whether a district court's order is final and reviewable under § 1291. It therefore comes as some surprise that in analyzing appellate jurisdiction in this case, the majority ignores § 1291 and the formidable host of authorities analyzing it and draws instead an analogy to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 a statute which has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of any circuit court of appeals.1 As I find this analogy puzzling, unnecessary and irrelevant, and as application of the finality principles of § 1291, and the current law of this circuit, compel the conclusion that an order of the Guam courts certifying a juvenile for trial as an adult simply is not final and therefore not appealable to this court before trial, I respectfully dissent.
* A final order of a district court for purposes of § 1291 is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978), quoting, Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). It is final "in the sense of terminating the criminal proceedings in the trial court." United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 1551, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978).
Where, as here, criminal proceedings against appellant have not terminated, the Supreme Court has said that appellate jurisdiction to review pretrial rulings, such as the certification order before us, exists only if the order falls within the "narrow class" of collateral final orders described in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, supra, 101 S.Ct. at 674 (if the litigation from which a challenged order arises has not terminated, review is possible under § 1291 only under the Cohen collateral order exception). The majority errs in its failure to apply the principles of Cohen.
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, supra, 437 U.S. at 468, 98 S.Ct. at 2458 (stating the Cohen test); see also Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 658, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2039, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). Assuming, solely for the purposes of this analysis, that the certification order possesses the first two characteristics of a collateral final order in the sense that Kingsbury's certification for trial as an adult has been conclusively determined by the Guam courts and that certification is a separate determination from the merits of the criminal trial yet to occur, the order still is not subject to interlocutory review by this court because denial of review now will not prevent consideration of the certification order upon appeal to us from final judgment.
The third requirement of Cohen is interpreted practically. Even if review of a claim might be possible after a final judgment, it may qualify as a collateral final order if the right asserted in the interlocutory appeal amounts to a right not to have the trial continue. See Abney v. United States, supra, 431 U.S. at 660, 97 S.Ct. at 2040. There is no suggestion in this case that if the certification was in error Guam may not prosecute Kingsbury. The certification determines the forum in which criminal proceedings will take place, not whether such proceedings will take place at all. Hence, this is not one of those extraordinary rights which must be vindicated now if it is to be vindicated at all. See also United States v. Layton, 645 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1981) (claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction not appealable as collateral order); United States v. Wilson, 639 F.2d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 1981) (claim of selective prosecution); United States v. Griffin, 617 F.2d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir. 1980) (claim of vindictive prosecution).
An interlocutory appeal will be permitted under § 1291 when denial of such an appeal would render any appellate review of the claim impossible as where review after final judgment is not permitted. See e. g., United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 1582, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971). Recent precedent of this circuit makes clear, however, that the propriety of an order certifying a juvenile for trial in the Guam superior court is properly considered by this court after conviction and appeal to the Guam district court.
To illustrate, in People v. Chi Ko Wong, 18 Cal.3d 698, 557 P.2d 976, 135 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1976), the California Supreme Court held that a certification order may be reviewed only before trial and not after. The ruling was based, however, on the fact that in California, the right to appeal in a criminal case is a right conferred by the legislature and it had not been conferred to permit review of certifications. Id. Therefore, the only means of review available was deemed to be by extraordinary writ before trial. Yet, as the majority holds, the Guam legislature confers a right of appeal in § 272. Chi Ko Wong is therefore not only distinguishable but its analysis cannot be used to limit the appeal right in § 272 because the case is peculiarly based on the absence of any right in California.2
The Guam legislature may determine the jurisdiction of the appellate division of the district court over decisions of the Guam territorial courts. 48 U.S.C. § 1424(a); Territory of Guam v. Olsen, 431 U.S. 195, 200, 97 S.Ct. 1774, 1778, 52 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977). The essence of the majority's analysis is that Guam limits appeals under § 272 to before trial, and therefore our review can exist only before trial. Linkage of this court's jurisdiction to that which the Guam legislature may grant to the district court's appellate division would mean that the Guam legislature has the power to control the scope of review by this court of cases coming from a district court of the United States. If this were so, Guam could create categories of interlocutory appeals to the Ninth Circuit by permitting only interlocutory appeals to the Guam district court. I do not think that any legislative body, other than Congress, can control the jurisdiction of Article III courts. Control has never been left to territorial legislatures.
In People of the Territory of Guam v. Okada, 642 F.2d 287, 288-89 (9th Cir. 1981), we held that the Guam legislature has no power to determine the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority's theory is inconsistent with this principle and the analogy the majority draws to § 1257 and Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975), reflects an important confusion of our relationship to Guam law and its courts.
The Supreme Court under § 1257 may review "final" decisions of a state's highest court, but only if those decisions present "federal questions." As to matters of state law, the Supreme Court is bound to accept the decision of the state's highest court. See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).
Id. at 481, 95 S.Ct. at 1039 (emphasis added).
The reason for the third Cox Broadcasting exception must be understood in light of our federal system. The Court has long held that to preserve a federal question for consideration in the Supreme Court after state proceedings, the federal question must be "seasonably raised in accordance with the requirements of state law. Noncompliance with such local law can thus be an adequate state ground for a decision below." Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357, 358-59, 73 S.Ct. 293, 294-95, 97 L.Ed. 387 (1953) (citations omitted). An adequate state ground for decision, such as a procedural rule requiring a claim be raised at the time specified by the state, may preclude Supreme Court review. See North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156, 163-64, 94 S.Ct. 407, 412-13, 38 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973) (applying the third Cox Broadcasting exception). Thus, when state procedural rules permit only interlocutory presentation of federal questions, and prevent their later presentation, the Supreme Court may consider the state's ruling on the only federally reviewable issue the federal question final and subject to review under § 1257. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, supra, 420 U.S. at 481, 95 S.Ct. at 1039. If the Court does not do so, review may be impossible later because of the state procedural rule.
The majority errs in assuming that determinations of Guam law have a preclusive effect on our jurisdiction, akin to that of state law on the Supreme Court. Unlike Supreme Court review of state decisions, we may review all aspects of a decision of the Guam courts; we are not limited to a consideration of "federal questions." By granting the Ninth Circuit jurisdiction over the Guam district court pursuant to § 1291, Congress provided for review even of "cases raising only issues of local law " which arose originally in territorial courts. Territory of Guma v. Olsen, supra, 431 U.S. at 199 n.6, 97 S.Ct. at 1777. Indeed the majority decides a question of Guam law when it narrowly construes § 272. The underpinnings of the third element of Cox Broadcasting therefore do not apply in the case of Guam.3 We need not address the "federal issues" now lest otherwise they become lost in impenetrable determinations of Guam law; we may consider those decisions of Guam law as well when federal rather than Guam legal principles call for such review. This is not a situation, as in Cox Broadcasting, where the extent of federal review is limited to "federal questions" and state law determines when those must be presented.
See State v. Trail, 255 S.E.2d 900, 902 (W.Va.1979); State, In Interest of Atcheson, 575 P.2d 181, 183 (Utah 1978); Boyd v. State, 341 So.2d 680, 683 (Ala.1976); Interest of Doe, 98 Idaho 40, 557 P.2d 634, 636 (1976); In re Welfare of I.Q.S., 309 Minn. 78, 244 N.W.2d 30, 35 (1976); State v. Evangelista, 134 N.J.Super. 64, 338 A.2d 224, 227 (1975); In re Doe, 86 N.M. 37, 519 P.2d 133, 134 (1974); Aye v. State, 17 Md.App. 32, 299 A.2d 513, 517 (1973); P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d 837, 839 n. 1 (Alaska 1972); Graham v. Ridge, 107 Ariz. 387, 489 P.2d 24, 25 (1971); Templeton v. State, 202 Kansas 89, 447 P.2d 158, 161 (1968); In re Doe I, 50 Haw. 537, 444 P.2d 459 (1968); In re Houston, 221 Tenn. 528, 428 S.W.2d 303 (1968); State v. Little, 241 Or. 557, 407 P.2d 627, 628 (1965), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 902, 87 S.Ct. 208, 17 L.Ed.2d 133 (1966). In a number of states which do not allow pretrial appeal, the statutory appeal provisions differ from those in Guam. See D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5, 6 (1977) (transfer order not appealable because does not meet Colorado definition of finality); In re Becker, 39 Ohio St.2d 84, 314 N.E.2d 158, 159-60 (1974) (juvenile appeal statute permits appeal only of delinquency finding); Commonwealth v. Croft, 445 Pa. 579, 285 A.2d 118 (Pa.1971) (certification order not appealable under statute which permits rehearing after order "committing" or "placing" child); People v. Jiles, 43 Ill.2d 145, 251 N.E.2d 529, 530 (1969) (court refused to exercise rule-making power to permit review of transfer order). But see In re T.J.H., 479 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Mo.1972); Kent v. Reid, 316 F.2d 331, 334 (D.C.Cir.1963). The Hawaii Supreme Court in In re Doe, 50 Haw. 537, 444 P.2d 459, 460 (1968) argues persuasively that the Kent decision should be limited to its facts. Moreover, since the Kent decision, the District of Columbia has changed its juvenile statute to allow immediate appeal. See Choco v. United States, 383 A.2d 333 (D.C.App.1978)
Boyd v. State, 341 So.2d 680, 683 (Ala.1976); In re Doe, 86 N.M. 37, 519 P.2d 133, 134 (1974); In re Houston, 221 Tenn. 528, 428 S.W.2d 303 (1968). See Interest of Doe, 98 Idaho 40, 557 P.2d 634, 636 (1976). But see Interest of Clay, 246 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 1976)
See State v. Stanley, 60 Haw. 527, 592 P.2d 422, 425-26 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 149, 62 L.Ed.2d 97 (1979); State v. Harwood, 98 Idaho 793, 572 P.2d 1228, 1230 (1977); People v. Chi Ko Wong, 18 Cal.3d 698, 135 Cal.Rptr. 392, 557 P.2d 976, 983-85 (1976), overruled on another ground sub nom. People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468 (Sup.Ct.1980) (en banc); Aye v. State, 17 Md.App. 32, 299 A.2d 513 (1973); State v. Briggs, 245 Or. 503, 420 P.2d 71, 73 (1966); State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 190, 215 A.2d 539, 545 (1965)
Similarly, other state cases cited by the majority in its meandering analogy, such as State v. Stanley, 60 Haw. 527, 592 P.2d 422, 425-26, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 149, 62 L.Ed.2d 97 (1979), and State v. Briggs, 245 Or. 503, 420 P.2d 71, 73 (1966), are patently inapposite. Both the statutes which the courts interpreted permitted appellate review of "final orders" of the state trial courts. Unlike § 272, the very terms of the state jurisdictional statutes included an element specifying the time for review at the point of finality. Section 272 contains no such element
As to matters of purely local Guam law, we apply a deferential standard of review. See, e. g., People of the Territory of Guam v. Dela Rosa, 644 F.2d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). But the deferential standard is "founded on sound policy" and is designed to assure the orderly development of territorial government in matters of local policy. See Bonet v. Texas Co., 308 U.S. 463, 470-71, 60 S.Ct. 349, 353-54, 84 L.Ed. 401 (1940); Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U.S. 102, 105-06, 43 S.Ct. 286, 287-88, 67 L.Ed 550 (1923). In matters of purely state law, it is the Constitution, not principles of policy, which limits the scope of federal review. See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, supra, 304 U.S. at 80, 58 S.Ct. at 823