By John O’Connor
For Variety
HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — The first appeal at the Supreme Court of Guam in 2026 is from the Office of the Attorney General, which challenges a lower court decision denying a motion to amend release conditions for the deportation of a man serving 10 years for the death of a coworker.
The decision at appeal tackled the question of whether the Superior Court of Guam retained authority to amend or suspend a prison sentence more than four years after the original judgment. The judge handling the matter said the answer was “no.”
The underlying case involves Brandy Ngiraibai Stephanus, who was initially charged with murder as a first-degree felony, aggravated assault as a second-degree felony and aggravated assault as a third-degree felony for the stabbing death of Randy Tomei.
The stabbing happened at a worker’s barracks in Yigo on Jan. 25, 2019. Stephanus reportedly told police that he was “the one who did it” and that he and Tomei were drinking earlier in the day and then argued over plates of food.
The two were said to have come to Guam from Palau in 2018 for work.
Stephanus eventually entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to manslaughter as a first-degree felony. In 2020, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison with credit for time served, which was 377 days at the time of sentencing.
But in July 2024, the Office of the Attorney General moved to amend release conditions to deport Stephanus, asking the court hold his prison term in abeyance so long as he remains outside the U.S. Stephanus then filed a motion to amend judgment in March 2025, requesting the court to stay his sentence to effectuate a removal order. The OAG would also renew its motion in August 2025.
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas decided these motions on Dec. 9, 2025.
“This case asks a simple question that turns out not to be so simple: can a court, years after imposing a lawful prison sentence, put that sentence on hold so the defendant can be deported? The people (OAG) say yes. They argue that suspending custody would serve practical ends saving resources and aligning criminal justice with immigration enforcement. The defendant agrees, urging that a stay would smooth the path for removal and avoid unnecessary incarceration,” Barcinas stated in his decision.
“But statutes and structure tell a different story. Guam law sets a firm deadline for changing sentences, and that deadline passed long ago. And even if the statute left room, the Constitution does not. It draws bright lines between what judges do and what the executive does. Those lines matter here. They keep courts from rewriting sentences to achieve executive objectives, however sensible those objectives might seem,” Barcinas added.
Barcinas determined that the Superior Court lacks authority to amend a sentence after 120 under Guam law.
In this case, Stephanus sought to stay or amend his sentence more than four years after a judgment was entered.
“Re-labeling the relief as a ‘stay’ does not avoid the statute’s prohibition because the effect is the same: it asks the court to alter the execution of a sentence after the period in which the Legislature has authorized judicial intervention has closed,” Barcinas stated.
Because the deadline expired, the Superior Court no longer had authority to stay, amend or modify Stephanus’ sentence, Barcinas said, before denying motions from both Stephanus and the OAG.
But Barcinas also found that principles around the separation of powers in government prohibit the judicial modification of a valid custodial sentence to facilitate deportation.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that once a defendant begins serving a custodial sentence, the court may not alter that sentence into a probationary one without infringing on executive powers,” Barcinas stated.
“Removal decisions are carried out by federal executive agencies; they are not effectuated through judicial alteration of criminal sentences …The structural allocation of powers under the Constitution does not permit a court to convert, suspend, or postpone custody to achieve an executive objective. The defendant’s request therefore falls outside the judicial function and cannot be granted without violating separation of powers principles,” the judge added.
The OAG appealed the denial of its motion to amend release conditions on Jan. 7.
