FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as FSM v. Sias, 16 FSM Intrm. 661 (Chk. 2009)
[16 FSM Intrm 661]
FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,
vs
SIMRON SIAS,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2001-1508
FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY ERNIST,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2001-1510
FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PETEWEN WILLIAM a/k/a JESSY WILLIAM
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2004-1505
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2004-1506
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2004-1507
[16 FSM Intrm 662]
FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FORGIVE ENGICHY,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2006-1507
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
Dennis K. Yamase
Associate Justice
Hearing: December 24, 2009
Decided: December 30, 2009
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: Pole Atanraoi, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
FSM Department of Justice
P.O. Box PS-105
Palikir, Pohnpei FM 96941
For the Defendants: Julius J. Sapelalut, Esq.
Chief Public Defender
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box PS-174
Palikir, Pohnpei FM 96941
* * * *
HEADNOTES
Criminal Law and Procedure — Prisons and Prisoners
The Joint Law Enforcement Agreement provides that the state is responsible for the incarceration of prisoners convicted or charged with a national crime. FSM v. Sias, 16 FSM Intrm. 661, 663 (Chk. 2009).
Criminal Law and Procedure — Prisons and Prisoners
National prisoners held in Chuuk jail will not be released outright from the state jail or ordered moved to some other facility that holds national prisoners when the FSM-Chuuk joint law enforcement agreement remains in effect. FSM v. Sias, 16 FSM Intrm. 661, 663 (Chk. 2009).
Contracts — Interpretation; Criminal Law and Procedure
When the 2009 Chuuk-FSM Joint Law Enforcement Agreement contains a clause whereby the FSM national government and the State of Chuuk "agree that at the end of each fiscal year the terms of this agreement shall continue in effect until such time it is terminated or renewed by the parties" and
[16 FSM Intrm 663]
when neither party has given the required thirty days notice to terminate the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement, the agreement remains in effect. FSM v. Sias, 16 FSM Intrm. 661, 663 (Chk. 2009).
Contracts — Interpretation; Criminal Law and Procedure
A joint law enforcement agreement clause that states — "Any renewal shall be subject to the availability of funds." — applies only to a renewal, not to a continuation of the current agreement. FSM v. Sias, 16 FSM Intrm. 661, 663 (Chk. 2009).
Constitutional Law — Case or Dispute — Standing; Criminal Law and Procedure — Prisons and Prisoners
To the extent that the prisoners are asserting that Chuuk has a right to be paid money by the national government because of their incarceration in Chuuk state jail, the prisoners are asserting, not their own rights, but the State of Chuuk's rights, which they cannot do because they lack standing to raise a non-party's rights. FSM v. Sias, 6 FSM Intrm. 661, 664 (Chk. 2009).
* * * *
COURT'S OPINION
DENNIS K. YAMASE, Associate Justice:
This came before the court for hearing on the defendants' motions for release from Chuuk state jail. The defendants have been convicted in the FSM Supreme Court of various criminal offenses under the FSM Criminal Code and have been sentenced to incarceration in the Chuuk state jail. They assert that, as national prisoners, they should not be held in the Chuuk jail since the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement between the national government and the Chuuk state government expired September 30, 2009, and no new joint law enforcement agreement has taken effect. The 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement provides, among other things, that the state is responsible for the incarceration of prisoners "convicted or charged with a national crime." Id. § 2. They assert that they should either be released outright from the state jail or that the national government should move them to some other facility that holds national prisoners.
The motions are denied. The court's reasons follow.
The 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement contains a clause whereby the FSM national government and the State of Chuuk "agree that at the end of each fiscal year the terms of this agreement shall continue in effect until such time it is terminated or renewed by the parties." Id. § 8. A party must give thirty days prior notice before the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement can be terminated. Id. Neither party has given notice to terminate the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement. The court therefore concludes that the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement remains in effect.
The prisoners point to the second sentence in section 8 — "Any renewal shall be subject to the availability of funds." — as proof that the agreement has expired. They contend that the funds do not become available until a 2010 renewal has been implemented. The FSM notes that Congress has appropriated money to fund a 2010 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement but that that agreement has not yet been formalized and implemented because the FSM is awaiting Chuuk's submission, as required by the 2009 Joint Law Enforcement Agreement, of the Chuuk Attorney General's Office reports about its work on national cases. The court concludes that sentence cited by the prisoners applies only to a renewal, not to a continuation of the current agreement.
[16 FSM Intrm 664]
Furthermore, to the extent that the prisoners are asserting that Chuuk has a right to be paid money by the national government because of their incarceration in Chuuk state jail, the prisoners are asserting the State of Chuuk's rights and not their own rights. This they cannot do. They lack standing to raise a non-party's rights. See FSM v. Udot Municipality, 12 FSM Intrm. 29, 40 (App. 2003); Sipos v. Crabtree, 13 FSM Intrm. 355, 365 (Pon. 2005) (a party cannot raise the claims of third persons; he may raise only his own claims; he must assert only his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties); Eighth Kosrae Legislature v. FSM Dev. Bank, 11 FSM Intrm. 491, 497, 500 (Kos. 2003) (petitioner generally must assert its own legal rights and interests and cannot rest its claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties); College of Micronesia-FSM v. Rosario, 10 FSM Intrm. 175, 188 (Pon. 2001) (a defendant cannot defeat a plaintiff's summary judgment motion by raising a third party's potential claim), aff'd, 11 FSM Intrm. 355, 360 (App. 2003) (agreeing with trial court); Dorval Tankship Pty, Ltd. v. Department of Finance, 8 FSM Intrm. 111, 115 (Chk. 1997) (generally true that parties may not assert the rights of third parties).
Accordingly, the prisoners' motions for release from Chuuk state jail are denied.
* * * *