FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as FSM v. Engichy, 14 FSM Intrm. 573 (Chk. 2007)

[14 FSM Intrm. 573]

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN ENGICHY a/k/a AISER JOHN ENGICHY,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2003-1508

ORDER GRANTING PAROLE

Richard H. Benson

Specially Assigned Justice

Decided: April 10, 2007

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:         Pole Antanaroi, Esq.

                                  Assistant Attorney General

                                  FSM Department of Justice

                                  P.O. Box PS-105

                                  Palikir, Pohnpei   FM   96941

 

For the Defendant:   Harry A. Seymour, Esq.

                                 Office of the Public Defender

                                 P.O. Box 245

                                 Tofol, Kosrae   FM    96944

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law and Procedure ) Parole

     Since the parole statute requires the court to request and consider the views of the prosecution, the prisoner and his counsel, the victim or head of the victimís family, and, when requested by the prosecution or the prisoner, such community leaders as clergy and municipal and village leaders, the court must request that the prosecution express its views. FSM v. Engichy, 14 FSM Intrm. 573, 574 (Chk. 2007).

Criminal Law and Procedure ) Sentencing

     That the charge on which the defendant was convicted is a serious one which involved dishonesty by persons holding high-ranking positions in government and that the public should be conveyed that message are factors to be taken into account when sentence is imposed. FSM v. Engichy, 14 FSM Intrm. 573, 574 (Chk. 2007).

[14 FSM Intrm. 574]

Criminal Law and Procedure ) Parole

    The parole statute requires that the justice reviewing a parole application "base his or her determination upon the prisonerís behavior in prison and any factors indicative of the prisonerís chances for a successful adaptation to community life after release." The statute (and the parole review procedural rule that implements it) limits the reviewing justice to considering just those, and no other, factors. FSM v. Engichy, 14 FSM Intrm. 573, 574 (Chk. 2007).

* * * *

COURTíS OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Specially Assigned Justice:

     On March 7, 2007, the prisoner, John Engichy a/k/a Aiser John Engichy, filed his Request for Review of Sentence Pursuant to GCO 1990-1 to Determine Eligibility for Parole, which expresses the prisonerís views, the views of the Chuuk Deputy Director of Public Safety, and the views of some community leaders and clergy that the prisoner asks the court to consider. Since the parole statute requires the court to "request and consider the views of the prosecution, the prisoner and his counsel, the victim or head of the victimís family, and, when requested by the prosecution or the prisoner, such community leaders as clergy and municipal and village leaders," FSM Pub. L. No. 11-72, ß 209 (to be codified at 11 F.S.M.C. 1204), the court, on March 14, 2007, requested that the prosecution and the Chuuk Director of Public Safety express their views on the prisonerís parole request no later than March 30, 2007. The prosecution filed its response on March 30, 2007.

     It opposed Engichyís parole on the ground that the charge on which Engichy was convicted is a serious offense and a message has to be conveyed to the community that these types of offenses must not be treated lightly. The prosecution asserts that considering Engichy to be eligible for parole would undermine the gravity of the offense for which he was convicted, which involved dishonesty by persons holding high-ranking positions in government, and would send the wrong message to the public.

      The prosecution is correct that the charge on which Engichy was convicted is a serious one and that the public should be conveyed that message. However, those factors were taken into account when sentence was imposed on Engichy.

      The statute requires that the justice reviewing a parole application "base his or her determination upon the prisonerís behavior in prison and any factors indicative of the prisonerís chances for a successful adaptation to community life after release." FSM Pub. L. No. 11-72, ß 209 (to be codified at 11 F.S.M.C. 1204). The statute (and the parole review procedural rule that implements it, FSM Par. R. 6(c)) limits the reviewing justice to considering just those, and no other, factors.

      The prosecution does not contest that Engichy has behaved well in prison or that he may successfully adapt to community life after his release.

      Now therefore it is hereby ordered that prisoner John Engichyís request for parole is granted and that John Engichy a/k/a Aiser John Engichy shall be released from jail on parole on April 9, 2007 on the following conditions:

     1)   he shall obey all laws and ordinances, FSM, state, and municipal, to which he is subject;

     2)   he shall not leave Chuuk while on parole without the courtís permission; and

[14 FSM Intrm. 575]

     3)   he shall report to the State Justice Ombudsman as directed by the Ombudsman.

* * * *