Brown v. People, 2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 13

Brown was convicted of attempted murder, first-degree assault, two counts of using an unlicensed firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of ammunition following a November 9, 2006 trial; the Superior Court judgment was entered March 30, 2007; on appeal Brown challenges multiple aspects of the conviction and sentencing; the Virgin Islands Supreme Court reverses one conviction (possession of ammunition) and remands for resentencing
Brown argued the ammunition possession conviction was unsupported since there is no Virgin Islands mechanism authorizing possession of ammunition, and the People conceded this point
The court rejected Brown’s other arguments as insufficient to warrant reversal, affirming the other convictions but vacating and remanding for a lawful sentence
The court found a legal split sentence (two years' probation without suspending any incarceration) to be illegal and vacated the sentence to permit a lawful re-sentencing
The court noted that some procedural issues (Rule 123 rights advisement and speedy-trial claims) were harmless or not properly preserved, and rejected merger-based challenges as not affecting substantial rights
The opinion emphasizes plain-error review for issues Brown failed to preserve and remands for a lawful sentence under 5 V.I.C. § 3711

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ammunition possession lacked sufficient evidence	Brown argues no authorization mechanism; no proof of lack of authorization	People concede no mechanism to authorize possession; conviction cannot stand	Reversed for possession of ammunition
Whether failure to advise rights under Rule 123 was harmless	Brown asserts Rule 123(c) rights were not explained	Harmless error because represented and no incriminating statements shown	Harmless error; no reversal
Whether Sixth Amendment speedy-trial delay violated rights	Brown argues delay violated speedy-trial rights	Barker factors weighed against dismissal; no prejudice shown	No reversal; Barker factors not favoring dismissal
Whether failure to merge attempted murder and first-degree assault was reversible	Merger appropriate; offenses should merge	Not necessary to decide merger; concurrent sentences minimize impact	Not necessary to decide merger; no plain-error impact
Whether the sentence was illegal due to split-sentence defect	Two-year probation without suspending part of incarceration violates §3711	Concurrent sentences; may be corrected on remand	Sentence vacated and remanded for a lawful sentence under §3711

Smith v. People, 51 V.I. 396 (V.I. 2009) (ownership/authorization issues for ammunition, no mechanism to authorize possession)
Mulley v. People, 51 V.I. 404 (V.I. 2009) (same authorization issue in ammunition possession)
Daniel, 518 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (Virgin Islands law lacks mechanism authorizing possession; cannot prove lack of authorization)
United States v. Daniel, 518 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (cite for authorization absence in VI context)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Sup. Ct. 1972) (speedy-trial balancing test (length, reason, assertion, prejudice))
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (post-accusation delay as trigger for Barker factors)
Brit o v. People, 54 V.I. 433 (V.I. 2010) (harmless error for rights advisement when no prejudice shown)
Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338 (V.I. 2010) (fine/sentence considerations in VI context)
Martinez, 239 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2001) (split-sentence legality/interpretation in VI context)
Gricco, 277 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 2002) (concurrent sentences and small fines not showing substantial rights impact)
Roberts, 262 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2001) (concurrent sentences and minor fines not grounds for Rule 52(b) relief)