“No Finality, No Appeal” – The Guam Supreme Court Confirms that a Dismissal Without Prejudice is Not Immediately Appealable by a Criminal Defendant

1. Introduction

The People of Guam v. Bruno Frankie Simmons, 2025 Guam 2, presented the Supreme Court of Guam with a seemingly narrow but highly consequential procedural question: May a criminal defendant appeal, as of right, from a trial-court order that dismisses the prosecution without prejudice? Defendant-Appellant Bruno Frankie Simmons urged that he could, insisting that the Superior Court should have dismissed his two criminal cases with prejudice and that the appellate court possessed jurisdiction to correct the alleged error. The Supreme Court disagreed and dismissed the consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction, thereby solidifying a bright-line rule in Guam: an order dismissing criminal charges without prejudice is not a final, appealable order for a defendant; absent discretionary review, no immediate appeal lies.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over dismissals without prejudice because such orders are non-final. Consequently, Simmons’s appeals were dismissed.
• Rationale: Finality is a statutory precondition to appellate jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(a)(2) and 7 GCA §§ 3107(b) & 3108(a). A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the merits, does not bar refiling, and therefore is not final. The Court declined to treat the filings as petitions for discretionary interlocutory review or for writs of mandamus, finding no extraordinary circumstances.
• Outcome: Appeals dismissed; no ruling on the underlying speedy-trial or due-process contentions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (1956) – Established that in criminal cases, final judgment occurs upon conviction and sentence. Guam’s high court adopted this foundational federal principle to indicate that Simmons had not yet been “tried, much less convicted and sentenced.”
• Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984) – Reinforced the “final-judgment” rule in criminal matters, disfavoring piecemeal appeals. The Court invoked this authority to emphasize the importance of uninterrupted criminal proceedings.
• People v. Gutierrez, CRA04-004 (Guam 2005) – Prior Guam decision declaring that a dismissal without prejudice is not final. This precedent provided the direct on-point local rule, which the Court expressly “joined” with federal circuit consensus.
• People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 – Discussed the speedy-trial clock. While ultimately irrelevant to jurisdiction, the opinion used Flores to rebut Simmons’s substantive assertions, underscoring that only nine speedy-trial days had elapsed.
• Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) – Provided the constitutional speedy-trial balancing framework. The trial court’s reliance on Barker showed that only a brief delay had occurred, weakening Simmons’s prejudice arguments.
• Federal Circuit Cases (e.g., Yeager, Day, Kuper) – Collectively demonstrate nationwide harmony that dismissals without prejudice are non-final. The Guam Supreme Court cited these to situate its rule within broader American jurisprudence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Statutory Text Controls. The Court began with 48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(a)(2) and 7 GCA §§ 3107 & 3108, all of which predicate appellate jurisdiction on “final judgments.”
2. Meaning of “Final.” Citing U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, the Guam Court reaffirmed that a criminal judgment becomes final only after conviction and sentence. A dismissal without prejudice, even though it terminates the current prosecution, leaves the government free to refile and thus lacks finality.
3. Policy Against Piecemeal Appeals. Quoting Abney and Parr, the Court stressed that criminal justice would be disrupted by interlocutory appeals each time a case was dismissed and refiled. Efficiency and fairness mandate a single appeal after final adjudication.
4. No Statutory Work-around. Simmons invoked 8 GCA § 130.15(c) (orders “after judgment”). Because no judgment existed, that statute was inapplicable.
5. Discretionary Review Declined. The Court evaluated—sua sponte—whether to treat the filings as petitions under (a) interlocutory review (7 GCA § 3108(b)), or (b) extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Finding none of the statutory factors satisfied and no “extreme or extraordinary” situation, the Court exercised restraint.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Clarity for Litigants. Criminal defendants and counsel now have explicit guidance: an order dismissing charges without prejudice cannot be appealed immediately. This should curb premature appeals and streamline Guam’s criminal docket.
• Strategic Considerations. Prosecutors may strategically seek dismissals without prejudice to preserve charging flexibility without risking immediate appellate scrutiny. Conversely, defendants must prepare to litigate any dismissal-related grievances only if (and after) the case is re-filed and proceeds to final judgment.
• Standardization with Federal Practice. The decision cements Guam’s alignment with federal and majority state rules, promoting uniformity and ease of comparative legal analysis.
• Judicial Economy. By shutting the door on interlocutory appeals of this sort—except under narrow discretionary avenues—the Court reduces the burden on higher courts and prevents fragmentation of criminal proceedings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Dismissal “with prejudice” vs. “without prejudice”
  • With prejudice: charges are permanently barred; the prosecution cannot refile.
  • Without prejudice: charges are temporarily dismissed; the prosecution may re-file within the statute of limitations.
• Final Judgment Rule
  Appeals are generally allowed only after the trial court’s decision ends the case entirely—i.e., after conviction and sentencing in criminal matters.
• Interlocutory Appeal
  An exceptional, court-authorized appeal of a non-final order. Guam statutes permit this only in narrow circumstances where immediate review promotes efficiency, prevents irreparable harm, or addresses issues of broad public importance.
• Writ of Mandamus
  An extraordinary court order compelling a lower court or public official to perform a mandatory duty. Issued only when no “plain, speedy, and adequate” legal remedy exists.
• Speedy Trial Clock Resets
  Under People v. Flores, if charges are dismissed and re-filed (e.g., by indictment), the statutory 45-day trial clock begins anew, and periods when motions are pending “toll” (pause) the calculation.

5. Conclusion

The Guam Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Simmons firmly establishes that dismissals without prejudice are non-final and therefore non-appealable by a criminal defendant as of right. By grounding its analysis in statutory text, longstanding federal doctrine, and policy rationales against piecemeal litigation, the Court eliminates ambiguity that occasionally tempted litigants to pursue premature appeals. Future defendants must now channel challenges to such dismissals through discretionary avenues—or await a final judgment should the prosecution choose to proceed anew. In the broader legal landscape, the decision enhances predictability, aligns Guam with the dominant U.S. approach to finality in criminal cases, and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to conserving appellate resources for matters that have reached true procedural maturity.