Judge Govendo found that the complaints made by the petitioner were untimely and without merit, Chief Prosecutor John Bradley said.
“In one claim, Rios attempted to argue that he didn’t understand his plea of guilty. The judge rejected that claim and found that the record contradicted the allegations,” Bradley said.
He noted that Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass Jr. defended the conviction and sentence on behalf of the victim and the Office of the Attorney General.
“The judge found that Glass’ arguments had merit in rejecting Rios’ claims. We are grateful that this repeat sex offender will remain in custody where he can’t attack innocent victims,” the chief prosecutor said.
Rios pled guilty to three counts of sexual abuse of a child, two counts of oral copulation, and one count of rape in 1997.
He was sentenced to 45 years in prison — 40 of which was suspended — and was released on probation in 2002.
In 2003, Rios pled guilty to sexual assault in the second degree as a lesser included offense in the first degree as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
He was sentenced to 10 years in prison — five of which was suspended — and was released on probation in 2008.
In 2012, Rios violated the conditions of his probation and was charged with two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, two counts of assault and battery, and two counts of disturbing the peace.
His probation in the 1997 and 2003 cases was revoked as he was found in violation of the conditions of his probation and sentence probation.
He was sentenced to 45 years without the possibility of parole or early release.
Rios was charged and convicted of one count of disturbing the peace while serving his probation revocation sentence.
Six months in jail was added to his sentence to be served concurrently with his 45-year sentence.
In 2015, Rios appealed his convictions, sentences, and revocation of probation, which the local Supreme Court affirmed. The high court denied the petition for a rehearing in 2018.
In February of this year, Rios filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Superior Court against the Department of Corrections and Commissioner Villagomez.
He said his guilty plea to sexual assault in the second degree in the 2003 case was an unintelligent plea, and thus, the revocation sentence must be revisited.
Rios also claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for this case, that the revocation sentence violated due process, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the appeal of his revocation sentence.
Arguments on the petitioner’s writ were heard in July in Superior Court with Cong Nie as Rios’ court-appointed counsel.
At this habeas corpus evidentiary hearing, all parties agreed that the court had all necessary documents and evidence to decide the matter, and that they were given an opportunity to present additional evidence.
Both parties did not call any witnesses to provide testimony. Rios was granted testimonial immunity and did not testify at the hearing. Statements made under oath were admitted in lieu of receiving live testimony.
In the claims about procedural issues, Judge Govendo looked at the assertion of a constitutional claim, statute of limitations, equitable tolling, doctrine of laches, and the exhaustion doctrine.
He found that Rios could not recant his decision to appeal and then claim that he was divested of the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.
“It is clear that [Rios] is not exhausting available remedies. Instead, he is forum shopping and clogging up the Commonwealth courts with different actions all trying to accomplish the same outcome,” wrote Judge Govendo in his decision.
On the merits of the writ of habeas corpus, particularly the claims made by Rios, Judge Govendo found that Rios’ guilty plea was valid and intelligently made, and that Rios failed to provide any new information to support his claims of being prejudiced.
“His version of the facts is not enough to support his claims. Under these circumstances, [Rios] has failed to show that counsel performed deficiently and that [he] was prejudiced,” wrote the judge in his decision.
Moreover, he found that it is not up to the Superior Court to overturn the CNMI Supreme Court through extrajudicial appeals disguised as a writ of habeas corpus.
The local Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing court’s order because Rios received a fair sentence, said Judge Govendo, noting that Rios’ criminal history and that his individualized sentencing claims have already been denied by the CNMI Supreme Court.
As for Rios’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation sentence appeal, Judge Govendo found that Rios failed to show that counsel performed deficiently and that he was prejudiced.
