Ward v. People
2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 9
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- Ward was convicted by jury on Oct 26, 2011 of third degree assault (14 V.I.C. §297(2)) and use of a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence (14 V.I.C. §2251(a)(2)(B)).
- At a Jan 30, 2012 sentencing, Ward argued that the Revised Organic Act and the Fifth Amendment precluded separate punishments for the two offenses.
- The Superior Court sentenced Ward to two years on the assault count (suspended) and seven-and-a-half years on the weapons count (concurrent with no suspension) to be served consecutively, staying execution pending double jeopardy review.
- In an Aug 7, 2012 hearing, the court stated it was required to impose separate punishments and lifted the stay on Aug 30, 2012; Ward filed a timely appeal on Aug 8, 2012.
- Ward challenges the validity of the separate sentences under §2251, arguing (i) conflict with the Revised Organic Act §3 and §104, (ii) an irreconcilable conflict with §104, and (iii) the rule of lenity; the record also shows a restitution issue and a potential mistake about consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.
- The court remanded for re-sentencing, vacating the judgment and considering (a) vacating or correcting restitution, and (b) correcting any improper consecutive sentence if it resulted from a mistaken belief that §2251 mandates consecutive sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2251 permits cumulative punishment with a crime of violence | Ward contends §2251 conflicts with §104 and is ambiguous | Ward argues §2251 should be read to override §104 or be voided by lenity | §2251 permits cumulative punishment despite §104; not voided by lenity |
| Conflict between §2251 and §104; does §2251 override general rule | Ward asserts an irreconcilable conflict and seeks to apply Blockburger | Court should harmonize statutes using specificity; §2251 is the specific exception | §2251 is a specific provision that creates an exception to §104, allowing cumulative punishment |
| Rule of lenity applicable to §2251 | Lenity should void §2251 if ambiguity exists | Statutes are not ambiguous; §2251 clearly authorizes cumulative punishment | Lenity does not apply; §2251 clear and unambiguous |
| Restitution is part of the sentence and cannot be delegated to a non-judge | Restitution amount delegated to victim was improper | N/A | Remand for proper restitution determination or vacate restitution award |
| Consecutive versus concurrent sentencing under §2251 | §2251 mandates consecutive sentences | §2251 does not mandate consecutive sentences; discretion to choose | Remand to adjust if consecutive sentence was imposed solely due to a mistaken belief that §2251 mandates it; discretion recognized |
Key Cases Cited
- Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1911) (double jeopardy interpretation under the Organic Act)
- Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1904) (double jeopardy scope under Organic Act language)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (explicit standard for cumulative punishment when legislature expresses clear intent)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for same offense vs. distinct offenses; basis for counting offenses)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981) (Blockburger as a rule of construction; exceptions when legislative intent clear)
- Capano, United States v., 786 F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1986) (lenity considerations in ambiguity of criminal statutes)
- Gov’t of the V.I. v. Parrott, 476 F.2d 1058 (3d Cir. 1973) (Virgin Islands jury trial and double jeopardy context)
- Gov’t of the V.I. v. Douglas, 812 F.2d 822 (3d Cir. 1987) (§2251 interpretation; whether punishment must be consecutive)