Justices turn down rehearing 2nd appeal of convicted child molester

The CNMI Supreme Court has denied a convicted child molester’s petition for rehearing of his second appeal that seeks to reverse his 30-year prison sentence.

The high court justices do not find that Alfredo E. Reyes has sufficiently overcome the demanding standard in granting a rehearing; that is, he has failed to propose how they have “overlooked or misapprehended” a point of law or fact.

Associate Justice John A. Manglona penned the decision and Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and Associate Justice Perry B. Inos concurred. The decision was released last Friday.

According to court records, Reyes sexually abused a then-16-year-old girl at Laulau Beach in May 2009, at Coral Ocean Point beach in September 2009, and in the jungle area near Hawaiian Rock Co. in December 2009.

A jury in 2013 found Reyes guilty of three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho, who presided over the trial, also found the defendant guilty of three counts of assault and battery.

In 2014, Camacho sentenced him to the maximum 30 years imprisonment. Reyes appealed, asking the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction and sentence.

In 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, saying there was ample evidence supporting it. But the high court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter to Camacho for resentencing. In 2017, Camacho resentenced Reyes to the same maximum 30-year imprisonment, saying that doing so will prevent Reyes from hurting anyone for the next 30 years. The judge cited Reyes’ serious prior convictions that includes accessory to murder.

Reyes appealed again to the Supreme Court, arguing that Camacho failed to individualize his sentence. The high court affirmed the 30-year sentence.

In their decision, the justices said that Camacho may have procedurally erred by impermissibly using an element of a crime as an aggravating factor but they did not find any plain error because Camacho “relied on a number of other aggravating factors.” The justices said this included Reyes’ criminal history and his manipulation of the victim.

The justices said they concluded that, while Camacho did commit procedural error, it was not such that it affected Reyes’s substantial rights and therefore did not plainly err. The justices said they also found that the sentence to be substantively reasonable.

The justices said Camacho’s reliance on other factors, including the various criminal convictions, temporary restraining orders, and the manipulation used to coerce the victim, were all given consideration.

Reyes then petitioned the high court to rehear his case.

In denying Reyes’ petition, the justices said a petition for rehearing “must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition.”

The justices said raising the same issues and argument, and raising new issues not asserted in the original appeal is not permissible unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Charles P. Reyes Jr. served as court-appointed counsel for Alfredo E. Reyes. Assistant attorney general Robert Charles Lee argued as counsel for the government.