The Supreme Court of Guam has issued an opinion affirming the criminal sexual conduct convictions of Joseph Marc Thomas Duenas Castro, Jr., in a case that addresses key questions about evidence sufficiency and concurrent charging in sexual assault cases.
Castro, who goes by multiple aliases including Joey, was convicted on four charges stemming from sexual assault allegations. The defendant received a 30-year prison sentence for one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration, along with three concurrent 10-year sentences for second-degree criminal sexual conduct charges related to sexual contact.
The case, designated as Supreme Court Case No. CRA23-004, originated from Superior Court Case No. CF0504-21. The appeal was argued and submitted on Nov. 17, 2023, in Hagåtña before a three-justice panel consisting of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres and Associate Justices F. Philip Carbullido and Katherine A. Maraman. Associate Justice Maraman authored the court's opinion.
Castro's legal challenge centered on two primary arguments that could have significantly impacted his convictions and sentencing. First, the defendant contested whether sufficient evidence existed to support all four criminal sexual conduct convictions. This type of challenge requires appellate courts to review whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The second major issue in Castro's appeal addressed a fundamental question of Guam criminal law: whether the territory's statutes permit conviction for both first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct when the charges stem from the same underlying sexual conduct. This legal question has implications for how prosecutors structure charges in sexual assault cases and whether defendants can face multiple convictions for related acts occurring during a single incident.
Criminal sexual conduct charges in Guam, like in many jurisdictions, are classified by degrees based on the severity and nature of the alleged conduct. First-degree charges typically involve sexual penetration and carry the most severe penalties, while second-degree charges generally involve sexual contact without penetration but still constitute serious felonies.
The case highlights the complexity of prosecuting sexual assault cases, where prosecutors must carefully consider how to charge defendants when multiple criminal acts may occur during a single incident or time period. The distinction between sexual penetration and sexual contact can be crucial in determining appropriate charges and potential sentences.
Castro was represented on appeal by William Benjamin Pole of the Law Offices of William B. Pole, P.C., located in Hagåtña. The People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney General Christine Santos Tenorio from the Office of the Attorney General's General Crimes Division.
The Supreme Court of Guam's decision in this case provides guidance for future criminal sexual conduct prosecutions in the territory. The court's analysis of evidence sufficiency standards and the permissibility of multiple convictions for related conduct will likely influence how similar cases are charged and defended.
The opinion, cited as 2025 Guam 9, becomes part of the territory's legal precedent governing criminal sexual conduct cases. Given that Castro's sentence includes 30 years for the most serious charge, the case also demonstrates the severe penalties that Guam law imposes for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
While the specific details of Castro's conduct and the evidence presented at trial are not detailed in the available court documents, the case appears to have involved allegations of both sexual penetration and sexual contact, leading to the multiple charges across different degrees of criminal sexual conduct.
The concurrent sentencing structure means that Castro will serve the 30-year sentence for the first-degree conviction, with the three 10-year sentences for the second-degree charges running simultaneously rather than consecutively. This sentencing approach is common in cases involving multiple related charges stemming from the same criminal episode.
The Supreme Court of Guam's handling of this appeal reflects the court's role in reviewing both the factual sufficiency of evidence and the proper application of criminal law in the territory. The court's opinion will serve as precedent for future cases involving similar charges and legal questions about multiple convictions for related sexual conduct.
This case underscores the serious nature of criminal sexual conduct charges in Guam and the appellate court's careful review of such convictions to ensure both proper application of the law and adequate protection of defendants' rights during the appeals process.