Shoy v. People, 55 V.I. 919

Shoy, a Virgin Islands firefighter, pled guilty to obtaining money by false pretense (Count IV) under 14 V.I.C. § 834(1) in exchange for the People dismissing three other charges.
Shoy sought probation without conviction and expunction under 5 V.I.C. § 3711(c); the trial court denied this request.
The trial court sentenced Shoy to one year of incarceration with all but four days suspended, plus a $200 fine and six months of supervised probation.
The People recommended six months’ incarceration suspended, three years of supervised probation, 400 hours of community service, and a $200 fine with a voluntary lifetime ban on certain courier services.
The court expressly found that Shoy’s conduct victimized multiple people and involved misappropriated vehicle titles, leading to a decision inconsistent with § 3711(c).
Shoy appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in not applying § 3711(c) despite meeting prerequisites, and (2) the denial was based on unsupported, record-inadequate allegations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3711(c) may be applied at all when prerequisites are met	Shoy argues the court abused its discretion by denying § 3711(c) after prerequisites were satisfied.	Shoy’s challenge rests on the court’s discretionary denial despite meeting statutory prerequisites.	Discretionary; denial could be upheld.
Whether the denial was supported by the record or based on unsupported findings	Shoy contends the court relied on unsupported assertions about victims and titleholders.	The court reasonably found multiple victims and misused titles to be victims, supported by the record.	Appeal affirmed; record-supported denial of § 3711(c).

Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2005) (plain-language interpretation when statute unambiguous)
Gilbert v. People, 52 V.I. 350 (V.I. 2009) (statutory interpretation in Virgin Islands context)
In re Adoption of Sherman, 49 V.I. 452 (V.I. 2008) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)
Knight, 989 F.2d 633 (3d Cir. 1993) (legislative intent inferred from ordinary meaning; plain meaning controls)
Rastelli v. Warden, 782 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986) (discretionary action inferred from use of 'may' vs. 'shall')
United States v. Arrelucea-Zamudio, 581 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (sentencing discretion and consistency considerations)
United States v. Young, 324 Fed. Appx. 165 (3d Cir. 2009) (implicit reasons may support upholding discretionary decisions)
Miller v. People, 54 V.I. 398 (V.I. 2010) (application of discretionary review in sentencing context)
Creque v. Luis, 803 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1986) (statutory interpretation and standard of review principles)
St. Thomas-St. John Bd. of Elections v. Daniel, 49 V.I. 322 (V.I. 2007) (harmless-error consideration in appellate review)