USVI Public Records

Document text

^ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX THE PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Plaintiff CASE NO. SX-09-CR-0000534 ACTION FOR: 14V.I.C. 298 ALVA CHANDLER Vs. Defendant NOTICE OF ENTRY OF MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Tn. ZULEYMA CHAPMAN, ESQ. IU' ORDER BOOK LIRARIAN LAW CLERKS JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IT H. HANNIBAL O'BRYAN, ESQ. ERNEST MORRIS, ESQ. Please take notice that on July 06, 2010 a(n) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER dated June 30, 2010 was entered by the Clerk in the above-entitled matter. Dated: July 06, 2010 Venetia H. Velazauez. Esa. CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT y / •»••)•' i' '—c =r=s>—=—C ' ROXANNE SERRANO COURT CLERK II FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Plaintiff. vs. ALVA CHANDLER, Defendant. Counsel: ZULEYMA M. CHAPMAN, ESQ. Department of Justice 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, St. Croix United States Virgin Islands 00820 AHomeyfor Plain!iff J CASE NO: SX-09-CR-534 CHARGE(S): AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE H. HANNIBAL O'BRYAN, ESQ. ERNEST E. MORRIS, JR., ESQ. Office of the Public Defender 1-B Clifton Hill, 2nd Floor Kingshill. St. Croix United States Virgin Islands 00850 Allorneys for Defendant DONOHUE, SR., DARRYL DEAN, Presiding Judge: MEMORANDUM OPINION (Filed: June 30, 2010) THIS MATTER came before the Court on a Motion for Bench Trial filed by the People of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter "People"), an Opposition to [the] Motion for Bench Trial, and a Response thereto. For the reasons that follow, the Court shall grant the Motion. I. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 3. 2009. Defendant Alva Chandler was arrestedand charged with Aggravated Assault and Battery/ Domestic Violence, amisdemeanor charge in violation ofTitle 14 ofthe Virgin Islands Code §298(5) and Title 16 oftheVirgin Islands Code§91 (b)( 1) and (2). Atarraignment on People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION October 21, 2009. Defendant pleaded not guilty and requested a speedy trial by jury, which was granted. On February 3. 2010. the People filed a Motion for Bench Trial. Defendant filed an Opposition to Motion for Bench Trial1 on February 9. 2010, and the People filed a Response on February 11.2010. II. DISCUSSION A. The Party's Positions and Recent Case Law The People move for a bench trial pursuant to Section 4ofTitle 14 ofthe Virgin Islands Code (hereinafter "Section4ofTitle 14 V.I.C"). which provides"[i]n misdemeanorcases only, trial judges are authorized to limit the term ofimprisonment to six months in prison; in which event, the defendant may be tried by the court, except in cases where a mandator)' sentence is imposed." V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14. §4. Defendant countersthatoncea defendant has invoked hisrighttoa trial byjury,theonlyway he may be tried by the Court is by waiving his right to jury, with consent ofthe People and the Court. To support this position. Defendant cites aMemorandum Opinion in People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Daly, SX-09-CR-641,201OWL 454801 (Super. Ct. Feb. 10,2010). The DalyCourtconsidered this same issue andheld that a defendant isentitled toa trial byjurywhen charged witha crime. Id. at*1. In Daly, as here, the Defendant relied primarily on the Revised Organic Act of 1954 (hereinafter 1The Court notes that the Defendant failed to adhere tothe procedural rules that govern this Court regarding service. Defendant's Certificate ofService indicates service was effectuated upon the Attorney General's "attheir mailbox atthe Court Clerk's Office." Service through the Superior Court mailbox is improper service. Local Rules ofCivil Procedure Rule 5.3 (made applicable to practice in the SuperiorCourt ofthe Virgin Islands through SuperiorCourt Rule 7) provides that "assigned boxes in the Clerk's office [are] for service by the Court of orders and other communications...." (emphasis added). LRCi 5.3 only allows the Court to serve orders and communications on attorneys. Therefore, it is improper for the Defendant to serve the People through the Superior Court mailboxes. Despite the improper method of service, the Court will deem the Opposition as filed because the People have filed a Response and because of the necessitv in moving this matter forward to resolution. People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION -ROA*'), §§ 3, 26 (as amended) and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Sixth Amendment states "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to aspeedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ...." U.S. Const, amend. VI. Section 3ofthe ROA provides in part that: The following provisions ofand amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States are hereby extended to the Virgin Islands to the extent that they have not been previously extended to that territory and shall have the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States. . .the first to ninth amendments inclusive.... Revised Organic Act § 3. Section 26 of the ROA provides that: All criminal cases originating inthe district court shall betried by jury upon demand by the defendant or by the Government. Ifno jury is demanded the case shall be tried by the judge ofthe district court without ajury, except that the judge may, on his own motion, order ajury for the trial ofany criminal action. The legislature may provide for trial in misdemeanor cases by ajury of six qualified persons. Revised Organic Act § 26. The Daly Court reasoned that "[althoughthe United States Constitution, isnot automatically applicable to the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1968 Congress amended Section 3ofthe Revised Organic Act, 'extending] all protections of the Sixth Amendment to the Virgin Islands.' " Daly, 2010 WL 454801 at *1(quoting Gov't ofthe Virgin Islands v. Boynes, 2003 WL 1936136 (Terr. Ct. April 9, 2003))(other citations omitted). Recognizing this, the Daly Court determined that individuals charged with crimes under Virgin Islands law are entitled to the protectionsofthe Sixth Amendment and therefore, upon the proper demand, are entitled to ajury trial. Id. *2. The Daly Court noted that Section 26ofthe ROA "provides the procedure in which a defendant secures theright toajurytrial." Id. The Court stated "fi]n order tosecure theright toa jurytrial, a Defendant must simply demand People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler I Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION the same at arraignment." Id. The Daly Court reasoned that the properly invoked right "cannot simply be stripped away by the filing ofamotion for bench trial by the People and the approval of the Court." Id Finally, the Daly Court held that Section 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. was inconsistent with the Revised Organic Act. The Courtreasoned that: [Ajny provision that allows for the removal ofadefendant's right to ajury trial after he or she demands one is inconsistent with both Sections 3 and 26 of the Revised Organic Act. Title 14. section 4 of the Virgin Islands Code purports to endow the Court with the authority to grant a bench trial in misdemeanor cases upon a limitation of the applicable sentence. That statute, however, is in direct contravention of the rights afforded to defendants in all criminal matters-a right to a trial by jury when demanded, irrespective of whether the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. Therefore, the Legislature of the Virgin Islands was without authority toenact title 14, section 4."Although Section 8(a) oftheROA empowers theLegislature toenact legislation for the people ofthe Virgin Islands, it expressly prohibits the enactmentof laws thatare•inconsistent with [the ROA] orthelaws oftheUnited States applicable to the Virgin Islands.' " Browne v. People ofthe VI. 50 V.I. 241, 257 (V.1.2008) (citing Revised Organic Act§8(a)). Accordingly, theRevised Organic Act preempts the local statute to the extent that the local statute purports to abrogate the right to a trial byjury explicitly provided in the Revised Organic Act. Id. The People argue in response to Defendant's position that a jury trial in a criminal prosecution is not afundamental right and the Court does not exceed its authority in granting bench trials. Insupport of this position, the People relyonGov7ofthe Virgin Islands v. Boynes, 2003 WL 1936136 (Terr. Ct. April 9. 2003). In Boynes. the Court considered, inter alia, whether the U.S. Constitution wasautomatically applicable to the U.S. Virgin Islands and whether a jury trial in a criminal prosecution was a fundamental right. Id. at *1. The Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not automatically applicable tothe U.S. Virgin Islands and the right toajurytrial ina criminal People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION prosecution was not afundamental right that was extended to the U. S. Virgin Islands.2 Id. at *1. 2. The People, therefore, assert that ajury trial in acriminal prosecution is not afundamental right and the Court doesnot exceed itsauthority by granting bench trials under Title 14 V.I.C. §4. In a more recent Superior Court Memorandum Opinion in People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Shallow, SX-09-CR-455,2010 WL 2195323, (Super. Ct. April 28,2010), the Court fleshed out the issue further. After thorough analysis ofU.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, theShallow Court noted that "serious offenses," as in those offenses with a penalty in excess of six months "automatically created the right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment because such offenses could not be deemed petty." Id. at *2 (citing Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 (1970)). The Shallow Court reasoned that if the defendant's position in that case was accepted "requiring jury trials for all criminal offenses, even petty ones, the realistic effect would betoerase the advantages gained by the Superior Court upon the implementation ofthe Magistrate Division." Id. at *4. Furthermore, "fi]fan unpredictable number oftrials on demand by criminal defendants facing no more that six (6) months : The Boynes Courtexplained: The Virgin Islands has been designated asan "unincorporated" territory ofthe United States, and thus, itissubject tothe"Territorial Incorporation" doctrine. Thedoctrine classifies certain rights set outin theConstitution as"fundamental" because theyare"inherent principles which arethebasis of all free government, which cannot be with impunity transcended." Therefore, ifaright isconsidered fundamental. Congress is prohibited from interfering with it inthe unincorporated territories. The remaining rights arcclassified as"remedial" rights, because theyarcconsidered "peculiartoourown system orjurisprudence." rather than essential constitutional principles. If the right is remedial. Congress is not required to secure it for U.S. citizens and other inhabitants of an unincorporated territory Under Article III. section 2 ofthe U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment ofthe Bill ofRights, citizens and other inhabitants of the fifty stateshave the right to ajury trial incriminal actions. This constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions is deemed only a remedial right, so Congress is not required to extend it to theTerritory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Id. at *1-2. (internal citations omitted)(emphasis in original). People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION imprisonment should be made the efficient and expedient administration ofjustice in the Territory may be seriously impaired." Id. Lastly, the Shallow Courtconcludedthat Section4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. was a valid exercise of legislative authority allowing judges the power to limit the term of imprisonment to six (6) months and to conduct bench trials of defendants charged with misdemeanors. See id. B. An Individual Charged with a Misdemeanor Under U.S. Virgin Islands Law is Not Automatically Entitled to Jury Trial As noted by the Court in Shallow, "federal rules deem that amisdemeanor, the penalty for which doesnotexceed sixmonths imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 or less for an individual or $10,000 for non-individuals, are deemed petty." Id. at *4 (citing 18 U.S.C .§1). Here, in the Virgin Islands, the Legislature ofthe Virgin Islands (hereinafter "V.I. Legislature") has determined that "a felony is acrime oroffense which is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year [and] every other crime or offense is a misdemeanor." 14 V.I.C. § 2(b). A clear distinction exists between felonies analogous to "serious" offenses, and misdemeanors analogous to "petty" offenses. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Lewis v. United States. 518 U.S. 322 (1996). "to determine whether anoffense ispetty, we consider the maximum penalty attached tothe offense. This criterion is considered the most relevant with which to assess the characterofan offense, becauseit reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity " Id. at 334-335. Indeed, this distinction with regard to the severity ofan offense has been recognized by the V.L Legislature in specifically identifying which offenses are classified as felonies and which are classified as misdemeanors. The V.I. Legislature went further and authorized trial judges to limit the term of imprisonment in People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION misdemeanor cases "to six months in prison; inwhich event, the defendant may be tried by the court, except in cases where amandator)' sentence will be imposed." 14 V.I.C. §4. The plain language and import ofSection 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. is clear.3 The Legislative grant ofauthority in Section 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. allows the Court to limit the term ofimprisonment in a misdemeanor case to six months and in its discretion, by use ofthe word "may,"4 try the defendant by the Court. Once the Court makes adetermination that the maximum prison term imposed will be limited tosix months, Section 4ofTitle 14V.I.C. authorizes theCourt to try thedefendant bybench trial. There is no entitlement to a jury trial at this point. Entitlement to a jury trial attaches if the defendant isexposed tomore than sixmonths imprisonment. See id. Seealso Lewis, 518 U.S. at323. 330. Accordingly. Section 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. has been applied by this Court and itspredecessor for well over twenty years and this Court is not inclined to interrupt its application where this Court findsthat the Legislative grantof authority isunequivocally clearand unambiguous. Consequently, this Courtdoesnot agreewith the DalyCourtthat all defendants, whetherchargedwitha felony or misdemeanor, are entitled to a jury trial upon demand with no acknowledgement of the Legislative grant of authority in Section4 of Title 14V.I.C. and U.S. SupremeCourt precedent inapplying the SixthAmendment rightto a trial byjury (underFederal Law).Thiswouldleave Section4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. withcompletely noeffect. Likewise, this Courtdoes notagreethatTitle Section4 ofTitle 14 Courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it meansand means ina statute what it says there. Consequently, thefirst stepininterpretinga statute istodetermine whether thelanguage at issuehas a plain and unambiguous meaningwith regard to the particular dispute inthecase. Whenthe wordsof a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last:judicial inquiry iscomplete. Joseph v. People of Virgin Islands. 2008 WL 5663569. *4. n. 9 (D.V.I. App. Div. Dec. 9, 2008) (internal quotation marksand internal citations omitted). 1 See e.g. Quick v. N.L.R.B., 245 F.3d 231, 256 (3d Cir. 2001)(noting that "may" is permissive indicating discretion. and "shall" is mandatory). See also Alaka v. Attorney General of United Slates, 456 I'.3d 88, 99 (3d Cir. 2006) (discussing that "may" rather than "shall" connotes discretion). People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION PageS V.I.C. is inconsistent with Sections 3and 26 of the ROA. C. Section 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. is Consistent with Sections 3and 26 of the ROA Afterclose analysis, the Court finds that there are no inconsistenciesbetween the Section4of Title 14 V.I.C. and Sections 3and 26 ofthe ROA. As previously discussed, the plain language of Section 4of Title 14 V.I.C. is clear. The V.I. Legislature gave trial judges statutory authority to "limit the term ofimprisonment to six months in prison; in which event, the defendant may be tried by the court, except in cases whereamandatory sentence is imposed." 14 V.I.C. §4. Trial judges- ifruling at the inceptionofacase thataterm ofimprisonmentofsix months or less will be imposed - are enabled to hear the matter and no right to ajury attaches. This statutory authority is not in conflict with Section 3of the ROA, which makes the Sixth Amendment applicable to criminal defendants, or with Section 26 ofthe ROA. which provides generally in criminal cases for ajurytrial upon demand. More importantly, section 26 of the ROA must be read in harmony with the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent analyzing adefendant's right to ajury trial in misdemeanor or "petty" cases. The U.S. Supreme in Lewis analyzed whether adefendant charged for multiple "petty" offenses had "a constitutional right to ajury trial where the aggregate prison term authorized for the offenses exceeded| six months." Lewis. 518 U.S. at 323. The Lewis Court stated: [T]o determine whether an offense is serious for Sixth Amendment purposes, we look tothe legislature's judgment, asevidenced by the maximum penalty authorized. Where the offenses charged are petty, and the deprivation of liberty exceeds six months only as a result of the aggregation of charges, the jury trial right does not apply The Constitution's guarantee of the right to a jury trial extends only to serious offenses, andpetitionerwasnotchargedwith a seriousoffense.That he wastried for People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION two counts of apetty offense, and therefore faced an aggregate potential term of imprisonment ofmore than six months, does not change the fact that the Legislature deemed this offense petty. Petitioner is not entitled to ajury trial. Id. at 330. To read Section 26 of the ROA in isolation giving no consideration of the Supreme Court's interpretation ofthe Sixth Amendment right would betantamount toadeprivationofjustice. To that extent, it is illogical that Congress would bestow more rights on the residents of the Virgin Islands than citizens ofthe United States. The concurring opinion in Lewis further explained: A deprivation of liberty so significant may be exacted if a defendant faces punishment foraseries ofcrimes, each ofwhich can be punished by no more than six months- imprisonment. The stakes for adefendant may then amount in the aggregate to many years in prison, in which case he must be entitled to interpose ajury between himself and the government. If the trial court rules at the outset that no more than six months' imprisonment will be imposed for the combined petty offenses, however, the liberty the jury serves to protect will not be endangered, and there is no corresponding right to jury trial. Id. at 334-335 (Kennedy, J. and Breyer. J. concurring in judgment)(cmphasis added). This Court faces this very issue in this matter and concludes that once the Court determines that adefendant's term ofimprisonment will be limited to six months, the defendant is not deprived ofthe right to ajury trial. The ROA must not be read to give open-ended authority for all defendants to have the right toajury trial in direct contravention withtheSupreme Court's holding in Lewis. Accordingly, thisCourt finds thatSection 4 ofTitle 14V.I.C. isnotinconsistent with Sections 3and 26 of the ROA and agrees with the Shallow Court that Section 4 of Title 14 V.I.C. was a "valid exercise of legislative authority in conferring upon trial judges of the Superior Court the power to limit the term of imprisonment to a maximum of six (6) months and conduct a bench trial of defendants charged with misdemeanors." Shallow. 2010 WL 2195323 at *4. People ofthe Virgin Islands v. Alva Chandler Case No. SX-09-CR-534 MEMORANDUM OPINION III. CONCLUSION This Courtfinds thatthe Legislative grantof authority in Section 4 ofTitle 14V.I.C. allows the Superior Court to limit the term ofimprisonment in amisdemeanor case to six months andtry the defendant by the Court. There is no right toajury trial if the defendant isnot exposed to more than six months imprisonment. Moreover, Section 4ofTitle 14 V.I.C. isconsistent with Sections 3 and26ofthe ROA andisinaccordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent analyzing a defendant's right to ajury trial in misdemeanor or "petty" cases. Accordingly, the People's Motion for Bench Trial shall be granted. An appropriate Orderof even date follows. DATED this ? ° day ofJune, 2010. ATTEST: VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQ. Clerk of the Court Dated: urt Clerk Supervisor This. ^ DARRVt DEAN DONOHUE75Rr Presiding Judge of the Superior Court CERTIFIED lOBBA TRUE COPY day of XJ#= 20m VENBTIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQ. FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Plaintiff. vs. ALVA CHANDLER, Defendant. CASE NO: SX-09-CR-534 CHARGE(S): AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER Forreasons stated in theaccompanying Memorandum Opinion oftheeven date and having fully beenadvised of the premises therein, it is hereby ORDERED that Motion forBenchTrial,filedbythe Peopleof theVirginIslands, ishereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this matteristransferred totheMagistrate's Division forfurther disposition. I** DONE and SO ORDERED this ?° day ofJune, 2010. ATTEST: VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ. ESQ. Clerk of the Court DateU: ourt Clerk Supervisor Vj3d//d DARRYLDEAN DONOHUE, SR. Presiding Judge ofthe Superior Court MCERTJRED TO BfAJWlSSfr 'VENEH'AMHlA/Ili-AZ(SUEZ, ESQ'.