United States v. Ronald Gillette
60 V.I. 855
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Ronald Gillette was indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on two federal counts for failure to register as a sex offender (SORNA and the Wetterling Act) and multiple related Virgin Islands sexual-offense counts based on conduct against two minors.
- The District Court exercised concurrent jurisdiction over the local offenses under 48 U.S.C. § 1612(c) because the local and federal charges arose from the same acts/transactions.
- After the Government rested, the court granted a Rule 29 motion as to the SORNA count (no evidence of interstate travel post-SORNA) and dismissed the Wetterling count (court concluded the Virgin Islands is not a “State” under that statute), but the court proceeded to trial and convicted Gillette on numerous local counts.
- Gillette appealed, raising challenges that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the local charges once federal counts were dismissed, that the court erred by not holding a competency hearing, that counsel should have been permitted to withdraw, that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that restitution was improper.
- The Third Circuit reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction de novo, competency hearing denial for clear error, counsel substitution for abuse of discretion, and sentence for substantive reasonableness; restitution was reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gillette) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of federal counts mid-trial deprived the District Court of concurrent jurisdiction over related Virgin Islands charges under 48 U.S.C. § 1612(c) | Dismissal of the federal charges meant the District Court no longer had concurrent jurisdiction over local charges because § 1612(c) ties jurisdiction to offenses that “constitute an offense or offenses” under federal law | § 1612(c) confers concurrent jurisdiction based on the nexus between local and federal offenses at the case’s inception; mid-trial dismissal of federal counts does not divest jurisdiction and would thwart congressional purpose to avoid duplicative trials | Court affirmed that District Court retained concurrent jurisdiction despite mid-trial dismissal of federal counts |
| Whether the court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after a defense-ordered psychological evaluation | Gillette argued the evaluation triggered a mandatory competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and there was reasonable cause to doubt competence | The evaluation found Gillette competent; § 4241 requires a hearing only if there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant is incompetent, which was not shown here | No clear error; competency hearing not required because record (expert report and defendant’s behavior) did not create reasonable cause to doubt competence |
| Whether trial counsel should have been allowed to withdraw (Sixth Amendment / substitution) | Counsel’s motions to withdraw reflected a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship warranting substitution | The court found no complete breakdown, noted prior substitution, and weighed delay/manipulation concerns; no “good cause” to substitute | Denial of withdrawal not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence and restitution were unreasonable or unlawful (substantive unreasonableness; restitution procedures) | Sentence effectively condemned him to die in prison without adequate consideration of age/mental illness; restitution speculative and court failed to inquire into ability to pay | Sentence within statutory maximums, well-explained and justified by recidivism and public protection; restitution authorized by Virgin Islands statute and based on itemized expert reports; ability-to-pay inquiry recommended but not reversible error | Sentence substantively reasonable; restitution appropriate and not plainly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shepard, 515 F.2d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (mid-trial dismissal of federal counts does not divest federal court of jurisdiction over properly joined local charges)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (supplemental jurisdiction / common nucleus of operative fact rationale)
- United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2012) (limits on pretrial motions to dismiss where they would require evaluating sufficiency of government’s evidence)
- United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 1998) (standards for competency and review of competency-hearing decisions)
- Parrott v. Gov’t of V.I., 230 F.3d 615 (3d Cir. 2000) (history and statutory source of the District Court of the Virgin Islands’ territorial jurisdiction)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness of sentences)