Rawlins v. People
2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 7
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- People charged Rawlins with violations of 20 V.I.C. § 493(a)(1) and § 493(a)(2) after a May 2, 2010 collision.
- Jury trial on May 25, 2011 featured officer Rhymer’s testimony of odor, staggering, failed field sobriety tests, and a breathalyzer result of 0.183%.
- Co‑witness Martinez and Thompson testified to others’ driving and observable intoxication; Jarvis described breathalyzer operation and calibration dated May 1, 2010.
- Rawlins testified that the other vehicle caused the crash and disputed the breathalyzer results and portions of the field sobriety testing.
- Jury convicted Rawlins on both counts; the Superior Court sentenced him July 8, 2011 to concurrent prison and probation terms with a $500 fine per count, and August 3, 2011 Judgment memorialized the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Count One duplicitous | Rawlins claims Count One combines two offenses. | Rawlins asserts § 493(b)(1) creates a separate offense with an accident element. | Count One is not duplicitous; § 493(b)(1) is a penalty enhancement. |
| Apprendi and special verdict | Rawlins argues § 493(b)(1) findings should follow Apprendi; special verdict improper. | Rawlins contends Apprendi limits enhanced penalties and the verdict is invalid. | Plain error not established; special verdict supported by record; no relief warranted. |
| Constitutionality of § 493(b)(1) | Rawlins contends enhanced penalty for accidents violates due process, vagueness, and overbreadth. | Rawlins asserts statute sweeps too broadly without intent or exceptions. | Statute constitutional; DUI under influence with accident supports enhanced penalty. |
| Sufficiency of Count Two evidence | Rawlins challenges breathalyzer evidence as non‑expert explanation of BAC. | Rawlins says no expert link between breath and blood alcohol; challenge to testimony’s sufficiency. | Sufficient evidence: breathalyzer results and testimony established BAC ≥ 0.08%. |
| Sentencing under § 104 (one crime, one punishment) | Rawlins and the People agree sentencing should be limited to one offense. | Rawlins seeks remand to correct multiple punishments. | Remand for resentencing to punish only one offense; dismiss the other count and refund excess fines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ambrose v. People, 56 V.I. 99 (V.I. 2012) (distinguishes sentence enhancements from separate crimes)
- Francis v. People, 52 V.I. 381 (V.I. 2009) (plain error standard and substantial rights considerations)
- Latalladi v. People, 51 V.I. 137 (V.I. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and credibility on appeal)
- United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1996) (standard for evaluating an element additional to the offense)
- Starks v. United States, 515 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1975) (duplicitous charges and overlap of offenses)