Man in cable theft gets 14-day sentence

The Superior Court has imposed a 14-day prison term on one of three persons accused of stealing telephone cables owned by the Pacific Telecommunications Inc.

Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona sentenced Jesse Secharmidal Peredo to one year in prison, all suspended except for the first 14 days, with credit for the 14 days he had already served in jail.

The 21-year-old Peredo pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Following a plea agreement, Manglona placed the defendant on one-year probation and required him to pay a $481 restitution with his co-defendants.

The judge directed the Peredo to also pay a $100 fine and $25 court assessment fee.

Peredo was ordered to write a letter of apology to PTI and Saipan Mayor’s Office, through Mayor Juan T. Tudela and the general manager respectively.

Manglona said that Peredo shall perform 80 hours of community work service and shall not consume or possess alcoholic beverages during his probation.

The Attorney General’s Office filed an information in February 2007 charging Peredo and co-defendant Erwin Evence with felony theft, conspiracy to commit theft, and criminal mischief.

A juvenile involved in the incident was charged separately. In November 2007, the juvenile pleaded guilty to theft and was subsequently sentenced.

Peredo and counsel signed the first plea agreement with the government.

At the October 1, 2007 change of plea hearing for Peredo, Manglona rejected the plea agreement. She said that from her review of the file, this is basically a copper wire theft case.

Manglona found that the jail term agreed to by the parties was too lenient given the impact this kind of crime has on the community.

Furthermore, Manglona learned from the declaration of probable cause filed in the case that a juvenile was also involved in this crime.

The prosecutor (then assistant attorney general Anne-Marie Roy) argued that the case is not a “copper wire” case, preferring to characterize the matter as a “telephone cable” theft case.

Three days after that change of plea hearing, Roy filed a motion to dismiss with respect to Peredo and Evence. Roy cited as reason that the government possessed insufficient evidence to prove its case at trial.

The AGO later filed an amended motion to dismiss. The amended motion deletes the claim of “insufficient evidence” and simply states that “the Commonwealth believes it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the case with prejudice.”

Manglona denied the motion to dismiss. She noted that, at the Nov. 8 hearing, Roy stated that the government’s lack of evidence was not its reason for seeking dismissal.

Manglona said the prosecutor, however, refused to disclose any factual basis for the motion.

Manglona said that upon her inquiry, the prosecutor admitted that the victim in this case had not been notified of the hearing or of the government’s decision to dismiss all charges with finality, notwithstanding the provisions of the Commonwealth’s Victims’ Rights Act.

Manglona said the prosecutor does not have the burden of proving that dismissal is in the public interest, but it does have the obligation to provide the court with a basis for the exercise of the court’s discretion that is more than “a mere conclusory interest.”

Assistant attorney general Timothy Connor, who took over the case, and defense attorney Perry B. Inos then entered into another plea agreement. Connor and Inos both agreed that this is in fact not a copper wire theft case.

The change of plea hearing was set last Wednesday.

In her written order issued yesterday, Manglona said she rejected the parties’ prior agreement, finding it too lenient and, at that time, not knowing what the final sentence was for the juvenile.

“Since then, the juvenile has been sentenced and, knowing what his sentence was, finds that this adult’s sentence is reasonable in relation to all the parties involved, including the defendant’s background,” Manglona said.

Furthermore, she said, the victim (PTI) in this case has been consulted and, although Peredo’s guilty plea is to a misdemeanor offense, which requires proof of the value of the item damaged being less than $250, the defendant is willing to accept a restitution order above the $250 amount.