Tindell v. People
2012 WL 78885
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Tindell pled nolo contendere to a single count (Count 25) alleging violation of broker-dealer registration requirements in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
- Funds ($9,950) were transferred to Tindell by Pamela Christie and Kevin Dumoulin for stock purchases; no stock confirmations or returns were produced.
- The information charged multiple counts; the plea agreement dismissed most counts in exchange for the plea to Count 25 and a recommended eight-year sentence with four years suspended.
- At sentencing, the Superior Court imposed eight years’ imprisonment (four suspended), restitution of $9,950, and a $1,000 fine.
- Tindell appealed the judgment, challenging information sufficiency, the plea’s voluntariness/factual basis, and the sentence.
- The Virgin Islands Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of information to state offense reviewable on appeal | Tindell argues information lacks elements. | Tindell contends defect is jurisdictional and reviewable. | Not jurisdictional; waived by nolo plea; affirmed on merits. |
| Whether information states a jurisdictional defect | Information lacks elements necessary to assert VI jurisdiction. | Count 25 alleges conduct in VI; jurisdictional defect not shown. | No jurisdictional defect; information adequate for jurisdiction. |
| Applicability of Rule 12(b)(3)(B) to Superior Court proceedings | Federal Rule allows challenge on appeal. | VI Rule 128(a) governs pre-trial motions; Rule 12 does not apply. | Rule 12(b)(3)(B) does not apply; Rule 128(a) governs. |
| Were there adequate facts to support a knowing and voluntary nolo plea | Challenge to factual basis before accepting plea. | Rule 126 focuses on understanding, not factual basis, for nolo plea. | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no error in acceptance. |
| Whether the sentence was lawful and within statutory range | Sentence exceeded authorized terms. | Sentence aligned with plea agreement and §658(a) range. | No error; sentence within range and consistent with agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (indictment defects are merits issues, not jurisdictional defects)
- United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1951) (indictment defects affect merits, not jurisdiction)
- United States v. Hedaithy, 392 F.3d 580 (3d Cir. 2004) (indictment sufficiency reviewed on appeal via Rule 12(b)(3)(B))
- Corraspe v. People, 53 V.I. 470 (V.I. 2010) (Rule 126 governs pleas in VI; federal rules may be inapplicable)