Guam judge denies D.J. Tosiuo’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in June 2024 shooting case

Judge Maria T. Cenzon denied a request to dismiss criminal charges with prejudice against D.J. Tosiuo on Sept. 22, 2025, finding the Office of the Attorney General did not act in bad faith and that the defendant failed to prove his speedy-trial rights were violated. The written Decision and Order in People v. Tosiuo, Criminal Case No. CF0665-24, follows an indictment arising from events alleged to have occurred on June 11, 2024.

The court said the People had a presumption of good faith when seeking dismissal in the earlier case and that the presumption was not rebutted. "The Court issues the following Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's Motion," Cenzon wrote in the decision. The judge relied on 8 GCA § 80.70(a), Guam Supreme Court precedent and federal authorities in evaluating whether dismissal with prejudice was warranted.

Why the ruling matters: Tosiuo faces multiple felony counts that the court described as serious, including aggravated assault with a special allegation for possession or use of a deadly weapon, two counts of terrorizing with deadly-weapon special allegations, and possession of a firearm without a firearms identification card. Convictions on those counts could carry enhanced sentences if the special allegations are proved.

The written order traces the procedural history: Tosiuo was indicted in CF0665-24 on Sept. 20, 2024; some of the June 11, 2024, charges had earlier been part of another case, CF0428-24, in which the People moved to dismiss certain June 11 charges without prejudice on Sept. 10, 2024. In that earlier motion the Office of the Attorney General stated it intended to prosecute those allegations "in connection with other GPD investigations that have resulted in the charging of other defendants for the same or related criminal activities," and that the June 11 allegations "in particular concern this defendant and three (3) other suspects." The Decision notes the new indictment, filed 10 days after the People moved to dismiss in CF0428-24, charged Tosiuo with some different and additional counts.

Tosiuo argued the dismissal in CF0428-24 was a tactical device to evade his speedy-trial rights and sought dismissal with prejudice in the subsequent case. The court examined three factors the Guam Supreme Court requires when considering dismissal with prejudice — the seriousness of the offense, the facts and circumstances leading to dismissal, and the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice — and concluded those factors weighed against dismissal with prejudice. The decision says the defendant failed to show actual prejudice such as unavailable witnesses, missing evidence, or a statute-of-limitations bar.

The order also notes that the indictment in CF0665-24 is not identical to CF0428-24: it adds an additional terrorizing count naming a new victim, Joseph Hernandez; it includes a charge of possession of a firearm without a firearms identification card on a different date and under a different statute; it adds an assault count; and it omitted a reckless-conduct charge that had appeared in CF0428-24.

Cenzon observed that prosecutors acted promptly to present evidence to the grand jury and obtain the subsequent indictment, which undercut Tosiuo's claim that the dismissal was used to gain a tactical advantage. The court found no evidence that the prosecutor's stated intent to consolidate cases with other suspects was merely a pretext for delay.

The Decision records that Tosiuo previously asserted his speedy-trial rights on Oct. 10, 2024, but later waived those rights on Oct. 23, 2024, and the waiver was followed by the filing of the present motion to dismiss. The court also took judicial notice of prior filings and appearances, including the People’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in CF0428-24 (filed Sept. 10, 2024) and of Assistant Alternate Public Defender Tyler R. Scott’s appearance in the earlier case.

The court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was not an appropriate sanction because (1) the alleged offenses are serious, (2) the People obtained a new indictment shortly after the dismissal in CF0428-24, and (3) Tosiuo did not demonstrate actual prejudice. "Therefore, the Court finds that the allegations against the Defendant are particularly serious in nature, and weigh heavily against dismissal with prejudice," the order states.

The ruling directs that trial dates will be issued under separate cover. The Decision also notes that Tosiuo remains detained in the related case CF0428-24 pending appeal of his conviction there, and that his detention in that case provides pretrial detention credit, which the court said inures to his benefit.

Discussion vs. decision: the order recounts the defense’s allegation of prosecutorial bad faith, the People’s response that no other co-defendants have been identified in the new indictment, and the court’s legal analysis referencing Guam case law and 8 GCA § 80.70(a). The decision itself is the formal ruling: the motion to dismiss with prejudice is DENIED and trial dates will be set.

Next steps: the court will issue trial dates under separate cover; no other relief was granted in the decision.

(Exact quotations and attributions are taken from the court’s written Decision and Order in People v. Tosiuo, Criminal Case No. CF0665-24.)