USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX Deeni Simmiolkjier SX 20 RV l Appellant/Respondent V ACTION FOR MAGISTRATE APPEAL Sonya Williams and Jose Ilalraza Jr Appellees/Petitionels Cite as 2020 VI Sager 90U Appearances DESNI SIMMIOLKJIER Pro Se KYE WALKER ESQ Attorney for Appellees Sonya Williams and Jose Harraza Jr MEMORANDUM OPINION ‘11 1 THIS MATTER is before the Appellate D1vision of the Superior Court on Appellant Desni Simmiolkjler s ( Ms Simmiolkjier ) Notice of Appeal of a judgment entered against her by the Magistrate Division on January 27 2020 Ms Simmiolkjier asserts she was not afforded due process by the Maglstrate Judge For the reasons stated below this Court will affirm the ruling of the Magistrate Judge I Factual and Procedural Background ‘11 2 On January 8 2020 Ms Simmiolkjier was accused of approaching Sonya Williams ( Ms Wllhams ) and Jose Ilarraza Jr I Mr Ilarraza ] and starting a verbal altercation The altercation escalated when Ms Simmlolkjier retrieved her police baton and began waving 1t at Mr Ilarraza m a threatening manner Ms Wllliams and Mr Ilarraza went to the police  2020 VI Super 90H station to file a report of Ms Simmiolkjier s behavior and were threatened by Ms Simmiolkjier once more Ms Wllhams and Mr Ilarraza alleged that Ms Simmiolkjier had verbally threatened both Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza at least once prior to the January 8 2020 incident CH 3 On January 9 2020 Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza filed a Petition for Protection Order against Ms Simmiolkjler The Petition alleged that Ms Simmiolkjier had threatened and harassed Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza on several occasions In response to the Petition for Protection Order a Temporary Stalkmg Relief Order was granted by the Magistrate Judge on January 10 2020 C11 4 The matter was scheduled for a hearing on January 16 2020 At the hearing Ms Wllliams and Mr Ilarra7a called three witnesses to corroborate their version of the events that took place on January 8 2020 Ms Simmiolkjier did not present a witness and the matter was continued until January 23 2020 The continuance was granted in order to allow Ms Simmiolkjier an opportunity to present her own witnesses and any supporting evidence to prove that she was being threatened and harassed by Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza At the January 23 2020 hearing Ms Simmiolkjier did not present a witness or proffer sufficient proof that she was the party being harassed The Maglstrate Judge then entered a Harassment Protection Order on behalf of Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza on January 27 2020 The Harassment Protection Order prohiblted Ms Simmiolkjier from contactmg or communicating with Ms Williams and Ms IlaIraza Whether directly or indirectly The Harassment Protection Order is in effect until January 23 2022  2020 VI Super 90U ‘11 5 Ms Simmiolkjier filed a Notice of Appeal of the Magistrate Judge 8 Order on February 4 2020 In her notice Ms Simmiolkjler asserted that she was not given an opportunity to be heard because she was prohibited from presenting evidence that Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza threatened her Ms Simmiolkjier claims this evidence was stored on her cell phone which she was not permitted to bring to the courtroom II Discussion A Standard of Review ‘11 6 The Magistrate Division has original jurisdiction over ClVil stalking complaints 5 V I C § 1473(a) accoranv1erv Treasure Bay VI Corp 67 VI 251 258 (VI Super Ct App Div 2017) Appeals from the Maglstrate Division are filed in the Superior Court 4 V I C § 125 Petltlons to review a decision from the Magistrate Division must be filed within ten (10) days after entry of the order sought to be reviewed SUPER CT R 322 1(a)(2)(A) Ms Simmiolkjiers Notice of Appeal filed on February 4 2020 is timely Therefore the Appellate Division has appellate jurisdiction over this matter ‘11 7 The Magistrate Judge is the finder of fact for all original JUI‘iSdlCtiOl’l cases In re Estate of Small 57 VI 416 429 (V I 2012) Factual determinations are reviewed for clear error whereas legal findings statements of law and the application thereof are afforded plenary review SUPER CT R 322 3(b)(1) and (2) ‘The Appellate Division cannot ignore these standards of review because 1t would render the proceedings that occurred in the Magistrate Division a complete nullity Williams v Bellot 70VI 38 47 48 (VI Super Ct App Div 2019) (citing Henry D Dennery  2020 v1 Super 90v 8 Ct C1v N0 2012 0130 2013VI Supreme LEXIS4 [WL] *2 (VI Jan 11 2013) (unpublished) Thus a ruling of the Magistrate Judge can only be overturned when there is evidence that a factual determinatlon is clearly erroneous A determination is Clearly erroneous When it is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support or bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentlary data Hodge v McGowan 50 VI 296 316 [VI 2008} B Due Process ‘11 8 The Revised Organic Act makes the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to the US Virgin Islands 48 U S C § 1561 The Equal Protection Clause made applicable to the U S Virgin Islands states {n10 law shall be enacted in the Virgin islands which shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law or deny to any person therein equal protection of the laws Id Ms Simmiolkjier claims that the Magistrate Judge violated her due process rights This assertion is based on Ms Simmiolkjier being prohibited from bringing her phone 1nto the courtroom which contained her evidence of Ms Williams and Mr Ilarrazas provocation towards her However this assertion is not supported by evidence The record IS absent of any indication that Ms Simmiolkjier informed the Magistrate Judge that she had evidence on her phone and was prohlbited from presenting it to the Court Absent the Magistrate Judge 5 knowledge of this information there is no support for Ms Simmiolkjiers claims This Court finds no hams for her due process violation claims  2020 VI Super 90U ‘11 9 The Magistrate Judge made his factual determinations based on the evidence that was present and readily available The Witnesses testimony at the initlal hearing provided more inSIght Into the confrontational nature of the events on January 8 2020 It was based on thlS testimony that the Magistrate Judge made his determinations when entering the Harassment Protection Order The factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge are not clearly erroneous since there is a minimum of evidentiary support as required by Hodge Therefore there was sufficient evidence to support Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza 3 claim agalnst Ms Simmiolkjler III Conclusion ‘11 10 For the reasons stated above the Magistrate Division 5 ruling to grant a Harassment Protectlon Order in favor of Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza 1s AFFIRMED DONE AND SO ORDERED this 27th d y of October 2020 H @9 flag ORABLE JOMO MEADE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the (90/ /) By @222; 4/: urt Clerk Date MW