Background
The Supreme Court of Guam vacated Colleen Sherise Castillon Yurko’s three-year sentence for first-time methamphetamine possession because the judgment made drug treatment conditional rather than mandatory. Yurko, who had no prior criminal history, was convicted after a traffic stop led to the discovery of methamphetamine residue in glass pipes. The Superior Court imposed the statutory maximum prison term, a $5,000 fine and a three-year parole term. It recommended participation in the Department of Corrections’ Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program, but only “if available.”
Treatment availability was a central issue throughout sentencing. Defense counsel reported that the prison’s residential program was unavailable to women and argued that incarceration would provide abstinence, not treatment. The parties identified community alternatives, including New Beginnings and Lighthouse Recovery Center. Yurko had also entered a Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center detoxification program after repeated release violations, but left after suffering a miscarriage. The sentencing court nevertheless ordered three years in prison and stated that it would approve residential treatment if such a program became available.
Yurko relied on 9 GCA § 67.401.12, Guam’s sentencing provision for a person convicted for the first time of felony methamphetamine possession. The law provides that the sentence “must also include” community service, mandatory enrollment and attendance in a court-approved drug rehabilitation program, and five years of probation. The Supreme Court had already reversed in a March 2026 order and retained jurisdiction to issue this explanatory opinion.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Robert J. Torres, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute’s treatment requirement is unambiguous. The Legislature used two commands—“must also include” and “mandatory”—and did not qualify them with language such as “if available,” “when feasible,” or “recommended.” The alternative-program clause accounts for the possibility that treatment at the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center may be unavailable: the Superior Court may approve another rehabilitation provider. It does not authorize the court to omit treatment altogether.
The court rejected the government’s arguments that the statute presupposes both an available program and a defendant willing to participate. Requiring both enrollment and attendance shows that lawmakers contemplated the practical problem of participation. And the record identified possible non-DOC programs that the sentencing court could have approved. A recommendation to join RSAT “if available” therefore failed to impose the affirmative obligation the Legislature required.
Because a sentence that omits a mandatory statutory component is illegal, the court vacated Yurko’s entire sentence and remanded for resentencing. It declined to sever only the defective treatment language. Resentencing as a whole allows the Superior Court to structure imprisonment, treatment, community service and probation together in a lawful package, subject to constitutional limits on increasing a sentence after a successful appeal.
Key Takeaways
- For a first felony methamphetamine-possession conviction governed by 9 GCA § 67.401.12, actual enrollment and attendance in an approved rehabilitation program must be part of the sentence.
- A conditional prison-program recommendation does not satisfy the statute, even when the Department of Corrections program may be unavailable to the defendant.
- The Superior Court may approve an alternative community provider, and counsel should develop a record identifying workable programs before sentencing.
- Omission of the treatment mandate makes the sentence illegal and permits correction through full resentencing.
Why It Matters
Yurko converts treatment for first-time methamphetamine offenders from a discretionary aspiration into an enforceable sentencing component. Guam practitioners should treat program availability as a problem to solve through evidence and court approval, not as a reason to dispense with the statutory mandate. Prosecutors, defense lawyers and probation officers will need current information about eligible providers, admission requirements and capacity so the judgment orders real enrollment and attendance.
The decision also addresses a Guam-specific institutional constraint: unequal access to correctional programming can affect whether a facially lawful prison sentence satisfies territorial law. Guam’s Legislature chose rehabilitation as part of the punishment, and the territorial judiciary must enforce that choice even when the preferred government program lacks capacity. That insistence on the text of the Guam Code reinforces the Supreme Court of Guam’s role as the final expositor of local law within Guam’s federal-territorial system.