People of Guam v. Vincent T. Tedtaotao

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VINCENT T. TEDTAOTAO,

Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA25-014 Consolidated Superior Court Case Nos. CF0239-85; CF0058-86; CF0097-86; CF0194-90; CF0214-91; CF0570-96

OPINION

Cite as: 2026 Guam 8

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and submitted on January 29, 2026 Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:

Zachary C. Taimanglo, Esq.

Assistant Public Defender

Public Defender Service Corporation

779 Rte. 4 Sinajana, GU 96910 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:

George Raymond Kolb, Jr., Esq. (briefed) William Lyle Stamps, Esq. (argued) Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Appellate & Writing Division

134 W. Soledad Ave., Ste. 301 Hagåtña, GU 96910

1

BEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.

TORRES, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Vincent T. Tedtaotao appeals from the Superior Court's denial of his post-conviction motion for relief. Over 40 years ago, Tedtaotao was convicted of aggravated murder for shooting a man when he was nineteen years old. The trial court sentenced Tedtaotao to the statutorily mandated sentence of life without parole ("LWOP"). Tedtaotao committed many other crimes while incarcerated at the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Tedtaotao was transferred to federal custody in 1996. In 2021, Tedtaotao filed a pro se motion for compassionate release. Aided by appointed counsel, Tedtaotao filed an amended motion for compassionate release or, alternatively, for resentencing.

[2] While these motions were pending, we issued our decision in People v. Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7, which cast doubt on the legality of mandatory LWOP sentences for youthful offenders. In Adriatico, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing after finding that the defendant had stated a colorable claim that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders violated the Organic Act's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Adriatico stands for the proposition that when a motion to correct an illegal sentence states a prima facie case, an evidentiary hearing is required unless the issue can be resolved as a matter of law.

[3] In supplemental briefing before the trial court, Tedtaotao argued that the similarities between his case and Adriatico were "palpable." Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 182 at 7 (Suppl. Br. re: Resentencing After Adriatico, Feb. 10, 2025). Yet the trial court summarily denied Tedtaotao's motion, concluding his LWOP sentence was legal without a hearing or any analysis of whether the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. Tedtaotao raises two issues on appeal:

2

(1) whether the trial court misapprehended Adriatico, and (2) whether the trial court has the authority to grant compassionate release.

[4] Tedtaotao's first issue is straightforward, and we conclude the trial court's decision violated the precedent this court established in Adriatico. Tedtaotao was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because (1) this court held the defendant in Adriatico had made a prima facie case for relief and (2) Tedtaotao's claim is indistinguishable from that in Adriatico. Further compounding the trial court's error, Adriatico provides the legal standard that should be applied to a claim that mandatory LWOP for a youthful offender is inorganic. Despite being presented with the Adriatico decision, the trial court summarily concluded that Tedtaotao's sentence was legal without the requisite analysis. This was reversible error.

[5] Whether Tedtaotao is entitled to compassionate release is more difficult to resolve. Tedtaotao's briefing on this complex issue is inadequate. He requests an extraordinary judicial remedy but invests little effort into researching how this court could justify creating a compassionate-release procedure within the context of this appeal. People v. Taisacan, 2023 Guam 19 ¶ 30 ("Courts are not in the business of judicial legislation." (quoting Carlson v. Guam Tel. Auth., 2002 Guam 15 ¶ 46 n.7)). We decline to reach this inadequately briefed issue on appeal.

[6] We reverse.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

[7] Tedtaotao was born in October 1965. In August 1985, when Tedtaotao was nineteen years old, he was arrested for shooting a man outside of Bottoms Night Club in Maite.¹Tedtaotao was

3

indicted for aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder, with two corresponding deadly- weapon special allegations. RA, tab 8 at 1 (Indictment, Sep. 19, 1985).²The jury returned a verdict finding Tedtaotao guilty of aggravated murder, attempted murder as a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated murder, and the two deadly-weapon special allegations. Tedtaotao was given mandatory LWOP for the aggravated-murder conviction, fifteen years for attempted murder, and five years for the special allegations.³Tedtaotao appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam, which affirmed after finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it prevented Tedtaotao from presenting evidence of the initial aggressor- victim's character. People v. Tedtaotao, D.C. No. 86-00044A, 1988 WL 236529, at *1 (D. Guam App. Div. Jan. 19, 1988), aff'd, 896 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit also affirmed. See generally Tedtaotao, 896 F.2d 371.

[8] In 1990, Tedtaotao's attorney moved for reduction of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole. The trial court denied the motion, finding that LWOP was mandatory under the aggravated-murder statute.

[9] While Tedtaotao was serving his sentence at DOC, he was convicted of felony escape five times. During one of these escapes in 1991 (Superior Court Case No. CF0214-91), he committed several violent crimes (including holding the Guam Treasurer's family hostage) so he and an inquiry is the age of the defendant when they committed the crime, not when they were convicted or sentenced. See, e.g., People v. Revells, 420 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (App. Div. 1979). On the night of the murder, Tedtaotao was nineteen years and ten months old.

4

accomplice could rob the Guam Treasury.⁴See generally People v. Tedtaotao, Crim. No. 93- 00001A, 1994 WL 129737 (D. Guam App. Div. Mar. 15, 1994), aff'd, 46 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1995). In 1996, Tedtaotao was placed in federal custody. Tedtaotao was in custody at USP Allenwood in Pennsylvania when he filed his motion for compassionate release, but he was later transferred to USP Florence High in Colorado.

B. Procedural History

[10] In April 2021, the Superior Court received a handwritten motion from Tedtaotao requesting compassionate release. The court also received a motion from Tedtaotao requesting appointment of counsel the same day. The trial court appointed counsel and eventually consolidated all of Tedtaotao's cases for consideration of his motion for compassionate release. On May 23, 2024, Tedtaotao's appointed counsel filed an amended motion for compassionate release or, alternatively, for resentencing. Tedtaotao argued that he met the criteria for release under the federal compassionate-release statute. He acknowledged that "[t]here is no equivalent Guam statute and sentencing guideline which directly applies to Mr. Tedtaotao's situation. . . . However, this Court may afford Mr. Tedtaotao the functional equivalent." RA, tab 171 at 5 (Am. Mot. Compass. Release, May 23, 2024). He argued that the Superior Court had inherent power under

7 GCA § 7107(h) to grant compassionate release. Tedtaotao acknowledged that the plain language of the aggravated-murder statute did not provide for the possibility of parole, but in the alternative to compassionate release, he asked the trial court "to exercise its inherent authority to do as ought to be done" and reconsider his LWOP sentence. Id. at 6.

5

[11] There was difficulty arranging for Tedtaotao to participate in a hearing on his compassionate-release motion. See RA, tab 167 (Min. Entry, May 16, 2023); RA, tab 168 (Min. Entry, Oct. 3, 2023); RA, tab 169 (Min. Entry, Jan. 16, 2024); RA, tab 170 (Min. Entry, Mar. 20, 2024); RA, tab 175 (Min. Entry, July 10, 2024); RA, tab 179 (Min. Entry, Oct. 24, 2024). Eventually, a hearing was set for early January 2025. In the interim, this court decided Adriatico. At the motion hearing, the People raised the recently issued Adriatico opinion. Defense counsel stated that "[i]t was not [his] intention to bring up Adriatico today" because it had not been briefed, and that it was his understanding they were before the court on the compassionate-release motion, not the motion for resentencing. Transcript ("Tr.") at 5 (Mot. Compass. Release, Jan. 7, 2025). He stated that Adriatico would not apply to the motion for compassionate release but may apply to the motion for resentencing, and that he would brief the issue with leave of the court.

[12] Tedtaotao testified that he has been diagnosed with depression, high blood pressure, and joint and back pain (with a recommendation for back surgery). He also testified that he was taking

"numerous medications." Id. at 10. Tedtaotao testified that when the COVID-19 pandemic began, he did not know if Guam had compassionate release, and he had filed a motion with the District Court of Guam. Defense counsel argued that Tedtaotao met all the criteria for compassionate release under the federal statute, and that but for his status as a Guam prisoner, he would have been released. Tedtaotao clarified that he was not seeking compassionate release based on COVID, but on his age and medical conditions.⁵

[13] The trial court took the motion for compassionate release under advisement and stated that it would allow the parties to brief the issue of resentencing. The trial court stated it would allow

6

the regular time for filing responsive pleadings and then would decide whether oral argument was required.

[14] After the hearing, Tedtaotao filed a supplemental brief on the Adriatico decision, but the People filed no response. The brief summarized the relevant portion of Adriatico discussing mandatory LWOP, where this court remanded for an evidentiary hearing after finding that the defendant had stated a colorable claim that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders violated the Organic Act's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. RA, tab 182 at 2-4 (Suppl. Br. re:

Resentencing After Adriatico). Tedtaotao argued that "Guam has long recognized the need for treating juvenile and youth offenders differently from adult offenders." Id. at 4. He noted that the Adriatico decision "strongly implied" that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders was inorganic. Id. at 6 (quoting Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 65 n.15). He also argued that "the similarities found in these matters [are] palpable." Id. at 7.

[15] The trial court issued a decision and order denying Tedtaotao's motions. RA, tab 183 (Dec. & Order re Am. Mot. Compass. Release, Apr. 7, 2025). The trial court first determined that it did not "have authority to grant Defendant Tedtaotao's Compassionate Release under federal statute

18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(A)." Id. at 6. The court emphasized that "Guam's laws do not provide local authority for a defendant's compassionate release," and that despite invoking the court's inherent authority, "[s]uch powers are strictly procedural in nature and do not confer any substantive authority nor increase the jurisdiction of the court." Id. (quoting People v. Wai Kam Ho, 2009 Guam 18 ¶ 8). The trial court also rejected the argument that 7 GCA § 7107 authorized the court to grant compassionate release. Id. at 7 (stating that section 7107 "gives each court of Guam the 'power [t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice'" (alteration in original) (quoting 7 GCA § 7107(h) (2005))). The trial court

7

concluded that "[w]ithout more, the court finds that it does not have inherent authority under People v. Ho, or authority under 7 G.C.A. § 7107(h), to grant the Defendant's compassionate release in accordance with federal statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(A)." Id. at 8.

[16] The trial court then turned to the motion for resentencing, holding that "Adriatico cannot be firmly applied to Defendant Tedtaotao's case to warrant his resentencing." Id. The trial court focused on the fact that the Adriatico court had found LWOP for attempted aggravated murder to be an illegal sentence. Id. at 9. The trial court reasoned that:

The Guam Supreme Court in Adriatico only found that the defendant's two LWOP sentences as to his Attempted Aggravated Murder charges warranted correction, because "[a]t the time of his sentencing, Guam law did not permit LWOP for attempted aggravated murder." Although Adriatico vacated the defendant's judgment in CF0116-84 as to the Attempted Aggravated Murder charges, it did not vacate his other LWOP sentences for the Aggravated Murder charge in that same case, as well as, the two counts of Aggravated Murder in CF0085-83. While both Adriatico and Tedtaotao were considered youthful offenders at the time of their convictions, the court does not find that a LWOP sentence for Aggravated Murder was an illegal sentence at the time of their convictions. Although the Defendant in this case believes that the Adriatico opinion can be firmly applied to his case, the nature of the charges that led to the Guam Supreme Court's vacation of Adriatico's judgment is not the same as Defendant Tedtaotao. Therefore, the court finds that Defendant Tedtaotao's LWOP sentence for Aggravated Murder does not warrant resentencing.

Id. (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Thus, the trial court ruled as a matter of law that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders is not an illegal sentence because the aggravated-murder statute authorized it. Tedtaotao timely appealed.

II. JURISDICTION

[17] This court has jurisdiction over appeals from the Superior Court of Guam under 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 119-100 (2026)) and 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005). "This court has appellate jurisdiction over a post-judgment order affecting a

8

defendant's substantial rights." Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 14 (citing 8 GCA § 130.15(c) (2005); People v. McKinney, 2018 Guam 10 ¶ 8).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[18] Summary denial of a post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed de novo. See State v. McColl, 2011 SD 90, ¶ 10, 807 N.W.2d 813, 816.⁶The standard is "[w]hether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to a hearing . . . ." Id.; see also People v. Martinez, 2025 Guam 17 ¶ 48 ("When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court must first determine whether the petition states a prima facie case for relief—that is, whether it states facts that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief . . . ." (quoting People v. Romero, 883 P.2d 388, 391 (Cal. 1994) (in bank))); People v. Sledge, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265, 270 (Ct. App. 2017) ("Like the initial screening of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, '[a]n evidentiary hearing is required if . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner may be entitled to relief and the petitioner's entitlement to relief depends on the resolution of an issue of fact.'" (alterations in original) (quoting Cal. R. Ct. 4.551(f))); 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 173 (May 2026 Update) ("A postconviction petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the petition and

9

the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.").

[19] Whether the Superior Court has the power to grant the relief requested in a post-conviction motion is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Wai Kam Ho, 2009 Guam 18 ¶ 6 (reviewing de novo whether trial court had inherent authority to expunge conviction).

IV. ANALYSIS

[20] Guam is among the few jurisdictions in the United States without a compassionate-release procedure. Although this court might have the authority to create such a procedure, "[i]t is not sufficient for a party 'simply to announce a position . . . and then leave it up to this [c]ourt to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims . . . .'" People v. Martin, 2018 Guam 7 ¶ 42 n.7 (alterations in original) (quoting Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 ¶ 35). Tedtaotao has not sufficiently articulated how a decision here could serve as the basis for creating a compassionate- release procedure. We reverse the decision of the trial court because it "drastically understated the impact of Adriatico on Guam's Jurisprudence," see Appellant's Br. at 10 (Aug. 5, 2025), but we decline to reach the inadequately briefed compassionate-release claim.

A. The Trial Court Erred by Finding Mandatory LWOP for Youthful Offenders Was a Legal Sentence Without Holding an Evidentiary Hearing or Performing the Analysis Prescribed by Adriatico

[21] Tedtaotao argues that the trial court "did not find Adriatico was applicable and did not exercise the 'evolving standards of decency' test." Id. He asks this court to "instruct the lower court to apply Adriatico and conduct the 'evolving standards of decency' test." Id. Tedtaotao further claims he should be given a "similar opportunity to put forth evidence of the evolving science on juvenile maturity and brain development applies to an emerging adult." Id. The People argue that "there is no automatic application of this Court's decision in Adriatico." Appellee's Br.

10

at 7 (Sep. 18, 2025) (emphasis omitted). They further contend that, under Adriatico, it is within the Superior Court's discretion to order additional briefing or hold a hearing. Id. The People also suggest that, because Tedtaotao briefed the evolving-standards-of-decency test, the trial court

"certainly followed the spirit of this Court's instructions" when it summarily denied Tedtaotao's motion. See id. at 9. The People conclude that "[o]nly a determination of the merits of that argument were required under Adriatico . . . ." Id. at 10. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error by summarily concluding that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders is lawful without either conducting any analysis or holding an evidentiary hearing.

1. This court's decision in Adriatico established the legal standard for evaluating the legality of mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders

[22] In Adriatico, the defendant argued that "mandatory LWOP sentences for youthful offenders constitute cruel and unusual punishment." 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 18. There, the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence had been summarily denied without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. See id. ¶¶ 9-12. We reversed the summary denial of the defendant's motion, "with instructions to appoint counsel and hold an evidentiary hearing on how evolving science on brain development applies to an emerging adult and to Adriatico's specific circumstances." Id. ¶ 4.

[23] We held in Adriatico that "courts should construe the term 'cruel and unusual punishments' as used in the Guam Bill of Rights with due regard for the historical, governmental, and cultural values of Guam." Id. ¶ 62. We observed that nothing was inherently flawed about the reasoning behind the federal "evolving standards of decency test," but it was inappropriate to impose that precedent on Guam where no federal decision had "considered Guam when evaluating whether mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders violates society's evolving standards of decency." Id. ¶¶ 63-64. We held that "to determine whether Guam's imposition of mandatory LWOP violates

11

the 'basic mores of society,' logically, 'society' must be defined to include Guam." Id. ¶ 64 (citation omitted). Rather than making the determination on appeal, we remanded with instructions for the trial court to survey "objective indicia" of societal values. Id. ¶ 65. We stated that "[o]n the record before us now, we express no opinion on how to properly define the boundaries of society, other than it must include Guam." Id. Ultimately, we concluded that "the trial court failed to entertain [the defendant's] cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims, and that remand for consideration under the legal standards articulated in th[e] opinion [wa]s appropriate." Id. ¶ 66. We ordered the trial court to (1) appoint the defendant counsel, (2) hold an evidentiary hearing on

"how evolving science on brain development applies to an emerging adult and to Adriatico's specific circumstances," and (3) decide "whether imposition of mandatory LWOP sentences for youthful offenders violates Guam's evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Id. ¶¶ 66-68.

[24] Although we did not fully resolve all the Organic Act issues raised in Adriatico, we provided guidance for the trial court on remand. We noted that "[a] good starting point" for the trial court's survey of objective indicia "would be the definition of 'Youth offender' found at 9 GCA § 83.15(d), which both parties argue represents objective indicia of Guam's societal values."

Id. ¶ 65 n.14. We also provided the following summary of our research on the topic:

"[T]wenty-two States and the District of Columbia do not mandate life without parole in any circumstance. Of the remaining twenty-eight States, only twelve . . . mandate life without parole." The statutes in at least two of those States that mandate LWOP for youthful offenders, including Hawai'i, provide an opportunity to avoid the mandatory nature of the sentence. Of those twelve states that have statutes authorizing mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders, the courts of at least three states have found those statutes unconstitutional to some extent. Additionally, it appears that neither CNMI, Marshall Islands, Palau, nor the Federated States of Micronesia mandate an LWOP sentence for any type of murder conviction.

12

Id. ¶ 65 n.15 (citations omitted). Thus, we observed that out of the 50 states and District of Columbia, only ten jurisdictions have statutes that provide for mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders without exception, with seven of those states still enforcing their mandatory LWOP statutes as constitutional.⁷We also observed that—other than Guam—no Pacific island jurisdiction based on American common law mandates LWOP without exception.⁸

2. The trial court erred by concluding that Tedtaotao's LWOP sentence was legal without applying the appropriate standard or holding an evidentiary hearing

[25] The trial court committed reversible error by misinterpreting the Adriatico decision. Although not stated explicitly, the only fair reading of Adriatico is that the defendant made "a colorable claim" that mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders violates the Organic Act Bill of Rights. See Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 15; see also id. ¶ 67 ("If a Guam prisoner is housed in a federal penitentiary with allegedly no access to Guam law materials, and the court determines the claims raised are meritorious enough to hold a hearing, fundamental fairness demands the assistance of a trained advocate."). We explicitly stated in Adriatico that "[t]he proper legal standard to apply to the claim that a mandatory LWOP sentence is inorganic is to apply a modified version of the 'evolving standards of decency' test that includes objective indicia of societal values from Guam." Id. ¶ 70.

[26] The trial court distinguished Adriatico from this case because we corrected only Adriatico's LWOP sentences for attempted aggravated murder but did not correct his aggravated- murder LWOP sentences. See RA, tab 183 at 9 (Dec. & Order). But this ignores our order for

13

further proceedings to determine whether Adriatico's aggravated-murder LWOP sentences were illegal. Tedtaotao had the right to an evidentiary hearing⁹because (1) we held the defendant in Adriatico had made a prima facie case for relief and (2) Tedtaotao's claim is indistinguishable from that in Adriatico. See McColl, 2011 SD 90, ¶ 10.

[27] Further compounding the error, even assuming the trial court could have properly resolved the legality of Tedtaotao's mandatory-LWOP sentence as a matter of law, its conclusion lacked the analysis required by Adriatico. See Blanke v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 2020 UT 39, ¶ 54, 467 P.3d 850 (Lee, J., concurring) ("[T]his is pure ipse dixit . . . a conclusory statement that the premise holds because we say it does."). The trial court's illegal-sentence inquiry merely confirmed that the aggravated-murder statute authorized LWOP. But this overlooked our holding that "[a] sentence that violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is quintessentially an illegal sentence." See Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 15 (citation omitted).

[28] Although Adriatico did not resolve whether mandatory-LWOP sentences for youthful offenders are illegal, it articulated the governing standard for evaluating such claims—the

"evolving standards of decency" test—which the trial court failed to apply. Instead, the court summarily concluded, without analysis or citation to authority, that "[w]hile both Adriatico and Tedtaotao were considered youthful offenders at the time of their convictions, the court does not

14

find that a LWOP sentence for Aggravated Murder was an illegal sentence at the time of their convictions." See RA, tab 183 at 9 (Dec. & Order).

[29] The People contend that the trial court "sufficiently followed Adriatico," but these arguments miss the mark for several reasons. See Appellee's Br. at 7. The People claim that there is no "automatic application" of Adriatico, and that our decision did not obligate the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Id. But the People ignore that Adriatico contemplated the possibility of two hearings on remand—one of which was mandatory. See Appellee's Br. at 7. Because Adriatico made a colorable Organic Act claim, we ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on brain science and youthful offenders. Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶¶ 67-68. This was not discretionary. Then we ordered the trial court to survey objective indicia of societal values and apply the "evolving standards of decency" test. Id. ¶ 68. We stated that it was within the trial court's discretion whether it wished to hold an additional hearing to aid in this survey of objective indicia. Id.

[30] A defendant's right to an evidentiary hearing in a post-conviction proceeding may not be

"automatic," but the trial court's discretion is sharply circumscribed when a defendant has made a prima facie case for relief. See, e.g., People v. Shipman, 397 P.2d 993, 995 (Cal. 1965) (in bank) ("When . . . facts have been alleged with sufficient particularity to show that there are substantial legal or factual issues on which availability of the writ turns, the court must set the matter for hearing." (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Adriatico stands for the proposition that when a motion to correct an illegal sentence states a prima facie case, an evidentiary hearing is required unless the issue can be resolved as a matter of law. It further stands for the uncontroversial proposition that a trial court can order supplemental briefing or a hearing to help resolve how the law applies to the facts of the case. But it is a misreading of Adriatico to claim an evidentiary

15

hearing is discretionary where a defendant has made a prima facie case that his sentence may be illegal—especially when his entitlement to relief turns on resolution of an issue of fact.

[31] The People's claim that the trial court "certainly followed the spirit of this Court's instructions" when it summarily denied Tedtaotao's motion without analysis or citation to any authority (let alone the objective indicia of societal values required by Adriatico) is unsupportable. See Appellee's Br. at 9. This court has often stated that "trial judges should 'articulate the reasons for [their] decisions.'" See, e.g., Hawaiian Rock Prods. Corp. v. Ocean Hous., Inc., 2016 Guam 4 ¶ 29 (alteration in original) (citing Rahmani v. Park, 2011 Guam 7 ¶ 65). The court erroneously treated Adriatico as limited to its facts, reasoning that because Tedtaotao's criminal history was different, Adriatico had no application. The factual variations between the two cases are trivial. See, e.g., Commc'ns Inv. Corp. v. F.C.C., 641 F.2d 954, 976 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (observing that

"finding factual variations from case to case is a trivial task" and that confining each case to its own facts "would virtually eliminate all precedent"). The trial court's decision overlooked the most important similarity between the two cases: Tedtaotao challenges his sentence on the same ground as Adriatico—that, as a youthful offender, he was subjected to mandatory LWOP in violation of the Organic Act's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Any factual distinctions are immaterial; the claims are indistinguishable. Although the judges presiding over the respective cases need not reach identical conclusions, both are bound to apply the "evolving standards of decency" test articulated in Adriatico.

[32] We reverse the trial court's decision and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing "on how evolving science on brain development applies to an emerging adult and to

16

[Tedtaotao]'s specific circumstances."¹⁰See Adriatico, 2024 Guam 7 ¶ 4. The trial court should then evaluate Tedtaotao's illegal-sentence claim under the legal framework established by Adriatico.

B. The Issue of Compassionate Release Warrants Serious Consideration, but Tedtaotao's Briefing Is Inadequate

[33] Guam is among a small number of U.S. jurisdictions that lack any form of compassionate release. We take this concern seriously, including the potential role the judiciary might play to ease the suffering of an aging incarcerated population. But Tedtaotao invites this court to create a compassionate-release mechanism based on a threadbare justification. We therefore decline to reach this inadequately briefed issue.

[34] Most commonly, "compassionate release" is a colloquial term that refers to one of the

"extraordinary and compelling reasons" a federal court may modify a term of imprisonment under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 119- 100 (2026)); Chun Hin Jeffrey Tsoi, Compassionate Release as Compassionate Decarceration:

State Influence on Federal Compassionate Release and the Unfinished Federal Reform, 59 Am. Crim. L. Rev. Online 1, 1 (2021). Most states have some provision for medical parole or compassionate release: "Terminology used by the various states includes, but is not limited to, medical parole, medical furlough, executive clemency, medical pardon, medical reprieve, medical release, parole for humanitarian reasons, parole of dying prisoners, community furlough, and compassionate leave." Marjorie P. Russell, Too Little, Too Late, Too Slow: Compassionate Release of Terminally Ill Prisoners—Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?, 3 Widener J. Pub. L.

17

799, 801 n.10 (1994). Of the fifty states, forty-nine have codified a compassionate-release mechanism in their law. See Julie B. Cramer, Releasing Compassion in the States, 76 Ala. L. Rev. 285, 304 (2024) ("Currently, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia provide some means for incarcerated people to obtain an early release from prison when they are facing imminent death or significant illness.").¹¹However, compassionate release that is both prisoner-initiated and court-ordered is a relatively recent development. See Tsoi, supra, at 1-2 (stating it was not until 2018 that the law was amended to allow federal prisoners to file their own compassionate-release petitions). In 1994, the American Bar Association conducted a survey that found only two states had court-ordered compassionate-release procedures. Id. at 8. And only the New Jersey procedure allowed a defendant to file his own compassionate-release motion. Id. at 2.¹²

[35] Arguably, the issue of compassionate release asks this court what the judiciary's role should be when the Legislature has failed to remedy a gap in the law that may result in injustice. Cf. Alvis v. Ribar, 421 N.E.2d 886, 896 (Ill. 1981) (stating that when legislature has "failed to act to remedy a gap in the common law that results in injustice, it is the imperative duty of the court to repair that injustice and reform the law to be responsive to the demands of society"), superseded by statute on other grounds, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1116 (West 1986), as recognized in,

18

Burke v. 12 Rothschild's Liquor Mart, Inc., 593 N.E.2d 522, 527 (Ill. 1992). Although the example of New Jersey shows we are not necessarily forced to await action by the Legislature on compassionate release, we are skeptical of Tedtaotao's arguments that we have the inherent authority to create this procedure within the confines of this appeal.

[36] Tedtaotao suggests that under this court's inherent authority, we can apply the federal compassionate-release statute to Guam prisoners held in federal custody. However, 7 GCA § 7107(h) is a threadbare justification for this court stepping into the breach. That provision states that the courts of Guam have the power "[t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice." 7 GCA § 7107(h). This statute is derived from former Guam Code of Civil Procedure section 113, which was adopted from the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") section with the same number. See id., Source; Guam Code Civ. Proc. § 113 (1953) (Foreword). Now found at section 128, the California provision provides: "Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: . . . . To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128(a)(8) (West, Westlaw current with urgency legislation through Ch. 101 of 2026 Reg. Sess.). Tedtaotao cites no case— California or otherwise—supporting the proposition that a court has the inherent authority to grant compassionate release, likely because this authority would be in derogation of the common law.

[37] The California Court of Appeal has observed that CCP § 128(a)(8) "is consistent with and codifies the courts' traditional and inherent judicial power to do whatever is necessary and appropriate, in the absence of controlling legislation, to ensure the prompt, fair, and orderly administration of justice." Kinney v. Clark, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247, 262 (Ct. App. 2017) (citation omitted). But "the common law rule [was] that the court loses resentencing jurisdiction once execution of sentence has begun." Portillo v. Superior Court (People), 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 709, 712

19

(Ct. App. 1992) (citation omitted). Accordingly, to the extent the Superior Court possesses authority to grant compassionate release, that authority must rest on some positive provision of law beyond its traditional powers. Because Tedtaotao identifies no such source of authority, we find it inappropriate to reach the merits of his request for compassionate release.¹³

[38] The issue of compassionate release demands further attention from all branches of our government.¹⁴But given the inadequate briefing before us, we cannot chart a path forward in this appeal.

V. CONCLUSION

[39] The trial court misapprehended our decision in Adriatico, which constitutes reversible error. Given Tedtaotao's inadequate briefing, it would be imprudent for us to reach the issue of compassionate release. We REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to (1) hold an evidentiary hearing on how evolving science on brain development applies to an emerging adult and to Tedtaotao's specific circumstances, and (2) apply the correct legal standard to Tedtaotao's illegal-sentence claim.

/s/ /s/

F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO ROBERT J. TORRES

Associate Justice Associate Justice /s/

KATHERINE A. MARAMAN

Chief Justice

20