The Supreme Court of Guam is set to hear the appeal of Eligio Adriatico, a man currently serving multiple life sentences for a string of murders in the 1980s. Adriatico, who is being represented by Stephen Hattori, the executive director of the Public Defender Service Corp., will have his day in court on November 16th.
The focus of the appeal is whether the trial court should have considered Adriatico’s youthfulness when deciding whether to grant him a parole hearing. According to Hattori, the appeal is based on U.S. Supreme Court case law and other jurisdictions that argue for the consideration of a defendant’s youthfulness.
Adriatico was charged, along with Romeo Marquez, for killing seven people and seriously injuring ten others between September 28th and October 4th, 1984. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole or work release for multiple charges, including aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, aggravated assault, assault, robbery, and possession and use of a deadly weapon.
While in prison, Adriatico and Marquez were convicted for a separate shooting in August 1984 at the Guam Department of Corrections facility, where they killed two inmates and left two others permanently disabled. As a result, Adriatico received an additional four life sentences without parole, to run concurrently with his previous sentence.
Last year, nearly four decades after the murders, Adriatico filed a motion requesting compassionate release. He argued that as a troubled and immature adolescent prone to mental and emotional challenges, he deserved a chance at freedom. However, Judge Vernon Perez ultimately denied Adriatico’s release.
With the upcoming appeal, the Supreme Court of Guam will examine whether the trial court should have taken Adriatico’s youthfulness into account when considering parole. The outcome of this appeal will have significant implications for Adriatico’s future behind bars.
Overall, this case highlights the complex issue of considering a defendant’s age and maturity at the time of the crimes when determining sentencing and the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court hearing will provide an opportunity to explore the legal precedents and arguments surrounding this matter.
