Rudette Christopher v People of the Virgin Islands, S. Ct. Crim. No. 2010-0037 (V.I. 2012)
Not For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS RUDETTE CHRISTOPHER, Appellant/Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S. Ct. Crim. No. 2010-0037 Re: Super. Ct. Crim. No. 211/2009 (STT) v. PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee/Plaintiff. ) ) On Petition for Rehearing Considered and Filed: October 26, 2012 BEFORE: RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice. APPEARANCES: Kele Onyejekwe, Esq. Territorial Public Defender St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Attorney for Appellant ORDER OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Appellant’s October 12, 2012 petition for rehearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 31, which permits a litigant to bring to this Court’s attention any “points of law or fact” that the Court may have “overlooked or misapprehended” in its prior disposition.1 Appellant has failed to establish, however, that this Court has overlooked or misapprehended any points of law or fact, as required by Rule 31. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://supreme.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810860/File/Opinions/Published/2012/File77.pdf
SHA-256 332ab97c128ddf06ebc6d6f7702440504a8d3834874bc359ce2056506433b126
Re-using this document
edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated': uncopyrightable by nature.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-332ab97c128d
Document text
Not For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS RUDETTE CHRISTOPHER, Appellant/Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S. Ct. Crim. No. 2010-0037 Re: Super. Ct. Crim. No. 211/2009 (STT) v. PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee/Plaintiff. ) ) On Petition for Rehearing Considered and Filed: October 26, 2012 BEFORE: RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice. APPEARANCES: Kele Onyejekwe, Esq. Territorial Public Defender St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Attorney for Appellant ORDER OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Appellant’s October 12, 2012 petition for rehearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 31, which permits a litigant to bring to this Court’s attention any “points of law or fact” that the Court may have “overlooked or misapprehended” in its prior disposition.1 Appellant has failed to establish, however, that this Court has overlooked or misapprehended any points of law or fact, as required by Rule 31. 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 31, “[n]o answer to a petition for rehearing will be received unless requested by the Supreme Court, but a petition for rehearing will ordinarily not be granted in the absence of such a request.” In accordance with Rule 8.2 of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, an answer was not requested by any member of the panel. Christopher v. People S. Ct. Crim. No. 2010-0037 Order of the Court Instead, Appellant improperly uses his petition to identify a clerical error in the Court’s Opinion, to dispute the accuracy of the record regarding the victim’s injuries, and to re-litigate issues that this Court previously considered and rejected as having been waived. This Court will therefore deny Appellant’s petition for rehearing. However, because Appellant does identify a clerical error in the Court’s Opinion, that error will be corrected herein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Appellant’s petition for rehearing is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, dated September 28, 2012, be corrected as follows: On Page 1, the first sentence of the first paragraph: delete “firearm” and replace it with “dangerous weapon”; On Page 17, the first and second sentences of the first full paragraph: delete “firearm” and replace it with “dangerous weapon”; and it is further ORDERED that copies of this Order be directed to the appropriate parties. SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2012. ATTEST: VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. Clerk of the Court