SUPERIOR Court Associate Judge Teresa Kim-Tenorio has denied the motion of Michael Aguon Manalo to find him legally eligible for Drug Court.
Assistant Public Defender Emily Thomsen, who represents Manalo, referred his case to the Office of the Attorney General for consideration for the Drug Court program on Nov. 16, 2023.
On Nov. 28, 2023, the OAG returned a denial letter, stating that the defendant’s combined restitution rendered him ineligible for the program.
On April 16, 2024, Thomsen filed a motion to find her client legally eligible for Drug Court in criminal cases 23-0101, 23-0102, and 23-0103. She said the OAG failed to properly consider eligibility requirements in the Drug Court Policies & Procedures, and that the OAG’s denial of the defendant’s eligibility was unreasonable.
On June 11, 2024, the OAG filed its opposition to the defendant’s motion.
Background
On April 3 and 4, 2023, Manalo unlawfully entered Dial Rent to Own in Chalan Kanoa and stole speakers, police said. The OAG charged the defendant with one count of burglary and one count of theft in Criminal Case 23-0101. The defendant’s restitution to Dial Rent to Own amounts to $1,387.20.
On April 6-10, 2023, the defendant unlawfully entered Safety Management Systems and stole U.S. currency and store merchandise, police said. The OAG charged Manalo with one count of burglary and one count of theft in Criminal Case 23-0102. The defendant’s restitution to Safety Management Systems amounts to $2,099.
On Oct. 4, 2023, Manalo unlawfully entered New CK Market in Chalan Kanoa and stole U.S. currency, food stamps, summer pandemic EBT coupons, cigarettes, food, drinks, tools, equipment, a bicycle, and a cell phone, police said. The OAG charged him with one count of burglary and one count of theft in Criminal Case 23-0122. His restitution to New CK Market amounts to $5,546.15.
Manalo’s total restitution in Criminal Cases 23-0101, 23-0102, and 23-0122 is $9,032.35.
3 felony cases
The issue before the court was whether the OAG abused its discretion when it determined Manalo to be legally ineligible for the Drug Court program.
Thomsen said the OAG improperly denied her client’s eligibility by making its determination based on his large outstanding criminal restitution.
For her part, Assistant Attorney General Heather Barcinas cited case law highlighting the OAG’s discretion in determining legal eligibility for the Drug Court.
She said Manalo has also not paid any fees or made any payments toward his $1,500 restitution order in another criminal case (No. 15-0010).
“Defendant is [now] facing three felony cases with significant restitution liability,” Barcinas added.
Having considered the defendant’s unwillingness to make payments toward a $1,500 restitution, the OAG weighed the unlikelihood that the defendant’s restitution in the instant matters would ever be paid, Barcinas said. The OAG then determined that the defendant did not meet the eligibility requirements of the Drug Court program.
Thomsen said the OAG’s denial of his eligibility is “unreasonable and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
But according to Judge Kim-Tenorio, “Granting defendant’s motion would unduly interfere with the prescribed role of the prosecutor, violating constitutional principles, case law, and the procedures described in the [Drug Court Policies & Procedures].”
She said it “would open the door for an inundation of challenges to, and usurpations of, well-established prosecutorial discretion. The Court will not open this door simply because the OAG exercised its authority to determine legal eligibility on a case-by-case basis when a defendant is not compulsory ineligible for Drug Court.”
