Court Opinion

ID: 9960486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:19:25.357724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:31.181847
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                               DIVISION OF ST CROIX

 PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS                                  SX 2020 CR 00098
                                 Plaintiff,
                                                      CHARGE(S) RAPE FIRST DEGREE
                    vs                             UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT FIRST
                                                   DEGREE BURGLARY FIRST DEGREE
                                                     ASSAULT FIRST DE REE HOME
 JIMMY DAVIS                                                  INVASIO§J
                                 Defendant
                                                               2024 VI SUPER 16U

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       1| 1   THIS MATTER is before the Court following the Opinion and Judgment of the
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, entered December 19, 2023, reversing and remanding this
Court’s November 29, 2022, Opinion and Order (“Bail Order ’) adjudicating Defendant’s March
21, 2022 Motion for Modiﬁcation of Bail (‘ 2022 Bail Motion ) Also before the Court is
Defendant 3 Motion to Modify Pretrial Release Conditions ﬁled January 25, 2024 (‘ 2024 Bail
Motion ’)

       1| 2    On December 13, 2022, Davis ﬁled his interlocutory appeal with the Supreme
Court seeking relief from the Bail Order The Supreme Court 3 December 19, 2023 Opinion held
that this Court erred when it relied on the allegations made by Davis’s former court appointed
attorneys in their motions to withdraw as counsel” in ruling on Davis’s 2022 Bail Motion Dams
v People, 2023 VI 16, 11 33 (V l 2023) Because this Court “considered these materials sua sponte
without providing Davis with a right to be heard, the matter was remanded to “provide Davis with
an opportunity to be heard with respect to the matters raised by the Superior Court sua sponte ’ Id
         1] 3   On remand a hearing was held March 20 2024 wherein the Court heard testimony
from Defendant Jimmy Davis, who attended the hearing via Zoom from the Farrelly Criminal
Justice Center in St Thomas, and from Defendant’s sister, proposed third party custodian,
Jacqueline Davis Wathey, and considered arguments of attorneys for Davis and the People For
the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s 2022 Bail Motion and 2024 Bail Motion will be denied,
and Davis’s monetary bail will remain set at $250,000, fully secured, and other conditions of
pretrial release will similarly be maintained
People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jimmy Dams, SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                         2024 VI SUPER 16U
Page 2 of 10

                                           BACKGROUND
        114     Davis was arrested in this matter on April 6, 2020, for rape in the ﬁrst degree,
among other charges In the arrest report bail was listed at $ 100,000, “as per chart " At his advice
of rights hearing on April 8, 2020, the People objected to Davis being released on bail, proffering
that he was a ﬂight risk and a danger to the community 2 The People also claimed that Davis was
to be serving a federal sentence and was mistakenly released before committing the instant
offense 3 At the April 8, 2020 initial hearing, the magistrate judge ordered that Davis 8 bail would
“remain at $1,000,000 ' 4
         1| 5   Davis ﬁrst moved for reconsideration of bail on August 11, 2020 arguing that
$1,000,000 was grossly excessive and designed only to punish noting his indigeney First Motion
for Modiﬁcation of Bail (“First Motion ’) at 3 Davis noted that he has lived on St Croix all his
life, has numerous family members here including his parents, and “upon learning a warrant was
issued for his arrest in this matter tumed himself in " thus arguing that he did not constitute a
ﬂight risk M Davis indicated that his mother would be willing to serve as his third party custodian
and assure his appearance before the Court [(1 Lastly Davis noted, without reference to any
particular cases, his history of appearances before various courts in other matters Id
        116     In opposition, on August 17, 2020, the People proffered that because Davis 3
National Crime Information Center (“NClC ) and Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD )
records indicated that he had been arrested “approximately 38 times and convicted for 8
offenses many of which occurred while he was on bond or supervised release for other
offenses Davis posed a risk of physical harm to the community Opposition to First Motion for
Modiﬁcation of Bail (“First Opposition’), at 2 The People also argued that Davis had been
involved in multiple high speed chases with VIPD, and ‘ has shown a disregard for the orders of
this and other courts, ’ and as such presented a ﬂight risk 5 1d at 2 4

‘ Probable Cause Fact Sheet, ﬁled April 8, 2020, at 38; see also Amended Order Modifying the Setting of
Bail in the Absence of a Judge (SX 2020 MC 00024) ( Bail Chart ) signed March 23 2020 by then
Presiding Judge Harold W L Willocks, which sets bail for ﬁrst degree rape at $100,000
2 Memorandum Record of Proceeding (Apr 8, 2020)
l [(1 Davis has indicated that he was in federal custody from February 26, 2018 until March 27, 2020 See
Defendant’s Emergency Renewed Motion for Modiﬁcation of Bail, at 3 (Dec 1, 2020) A warrant was
issued for Davis by the U S District Court magistrate judge on March 31, 2020, for failure to report to
probation within 72 hours of being released See Probable Cause Fact Sheet, at 61
4 1d The WebEx recording of this hearing, conducted without a court reporter, is unavailable and no
transcript exists As such, it is unknown what ﬁndings, if any, were made by the magistrate judge regarding
the bail amount Funher, it remains unclear from the available record whether the magistrate judge in fact
increased Davis’s bail from $100,000 to $1,000,000 at that hearing or, if not, when the bail was increased
5 The First Opposition included an April 4, 2020 supplemental VIPD report in this matter and February 6
and February 27, 2018 supplemental reports related to VIPD s attempt to arrest Davis for a December 12,
2017 assault (Complaint No 17 A 1195]) Those 2018 supplements reported that Davis made ‘ several
telephone calls" to the Superior Court Clerk’s ofﬁce, “became irate and began cursing " Further, Davis is
People oflhe V12 gm Islands v Jimmy Dam SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                          2024 VI SUPER 16U
Page 3 of 10

        1| 7    A hearing was held November 16, 2020, wherein the Court orally denied the First
Motion without prejudice and instructed counsel to provide supplemental information regarding
the status of Defendant’s federal sentence 6
       1| 8   On December 1, 2020, Davis ﬁled his Emergency Renewed Motion for
Modiﬁcation of Bail (“Emergency Motion ) and provided an April 14, 2020 V 1 Bureau of
Corrections Sentence Data Record (“Timesheet ’) reﬂecting the status of his incarceration for
Territorial matters 7
      1] 9   On June 14, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Davis’s Renewed Motion for
Modiﬁcation of Bail (‘ Renewed Motion ’) ﬁled March 22, 2021, where the Court issued ﬁndings
and orally denied the Renewed Motion On June 22, 2021, Davis ﬁled an interlocutory appeal to
the Supreme Court On April 1, 2022 the Supreme Court issued its Opinion holding that this Court
“erred when it denied [Davis’s] motion for modiﬁcation of bail for the reasons given at the June
 14 2021 hearing Dams i People 2022 V1 8 118 (V I 2022) Because this Court had applied
the incorrect legal standard when it denied Davis’s motion without explaining how its ﬁndings
justiﬁed setting bail at $1,000 000 the matter was remanded to permit the Court to clearly
articulate how its ﬁndings support setting bail ’ in a particular amount Id at 111|12 n 2, 13

reported to have called the Superior Court inquiring about a family court case involving him When the
clerk advised him that the requested information could not be disclosed by phone, ‘ Mr Davis began cursing
and he made threats saying the Superior Court will ﬁnd the clerk in a body bag
   Davis was arrested for the December 2017 assault on February 26, 2018, as he sought to evade police
The supplemental report stated that police pursued Davis until one marked VIPD unit cut him off, at which
point “Davis then placed the truck he was operating in reverse and collided into a second marked police
vehicle
   Another high speed chase referenced in the First Opposition occurred January 31, 2010 as recounted in
the U S District Court‘s description, of which the Court takes judicial notice ‘ On January 31, 2010, police
were informed that an individual with a gun was seen in the Aurea Diaz Housing Community driving a blue
Suzuki Aerio Police responded and observed a vehicle matching this description a shon distance from the
housing community A high speed chase ensued the suspect eventually drove through a fence on
someone 3 property and drew a gun on the pursuing ofﬁcer The suspect escaped, but abandoned the
vehicle Inside the vehicle, police found a cell phone that allegedly contained Defendant [Davis]’s picture
A police ofﬁcer identiﬁed the person in the picture on the phone as the person he was pursuing Based on
these circumstances, the Superior Court issued a search warrant for No 816 William's Delight and an arrest
warrant for Defendant On February 13, 2010, members of the VIPD executed the search warrant at 816
William’s Delight During the execution of this search warrant, a member of the VIPD witnessed what
appeared to be a hand grenade being tossed from the living room window of the house The search of the
residence also revealed a handgun Defendant Jimmy Davis and his mother were the only occupants of the
home at the time of the search Defendant was arrested and placed in the custody of the VIPD ’ L mm!
Stares v Dams 2010U S Dist LEXIS 59354 at *2 3 (DV[ June 15 2010)
" Memorandum Record of Proceeding (Nov 16, 2020)
" The Emergency Motion indicated that the Timesheet “does not fully reﬂect the assessment of Mr Davis 3
incarceration for federal matters Emergency Motion at 3
People 0fthc Virgin Islands v Jimmy Dams SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                        2024 VI SUPER 16U
Page 4 0f [0

        11 10 A hearing was held on October 26, 2022, wherein the parties were to ‘ be prepared
to present evidence, or to identify speciﬁc evidence in the existing record, on the factors to be
considered regarding Defendant’s release, including how those factors do or do not warrant
imposition of speciﬁc terms and conditions and the maintenance of bail in any particular monetary
amount ”3
        11 l I At that hearing, through counsel, Davis emphasized that he was requesting either
release on his own recognizance or cash bail set in an amount that he could afford to post as an
indigent defendant The Court heard testimony ﬁ'om Davis 8 sister, proposed third party custodian,
Jacqueline Davis Wathey The People presented testimony from Commander Naomi Joseph of the
Virgin Islands Police Department, who testiﬁed to Davis 8 various interactions with law
enforcement since the 1990 8
       1 12 On November 29 2022 the Court issued its Bail Order granting the Renewed
Motion, reducing the bail to $250 000, but rejecting Davis’s request for release on his own
recognizance or a lower cash bail In addition to the parties’ ﬁlings and evidence introduced at the
October 26, 2022 hearing, in the Bail Order the Court considered the reasons Davis 5 former court
appointed attorneys had given for seeking leave to withdraw from his representation which
included characterizations of Davis as ‘ threatening ’ “combative, ’ and “violent ’ as substantive
support for its decision setting the cash bail amount
       1] 13    Davis 3 December 13, 2022 appeal from the Bail Order argued, among other things,
that the Superior Court erred by considering as substantive evidence the content of his former
court appointed attorneys motions to withdraw The Supreme Court’s December 19, 2023
Opinion concurred, and reversed and remanded the Bail Order to this Court The Supreme Court
noted that evidence of violent behavior directed towards ofﬁcers of the court and others is relevant
to a bail modiﬁcation inquiry However, because evidence of such conduct had not been put forth
by the People, and it is “a bedrock principal of our judicial system that courts should issue decisions
based on arguments made and evidence presented by the parties, ’ and not based on ‘ arguments
their adversaries never made ” this Court had erred in considering the contents of the previous
attomeys’ motions to withdraw Davis v People 2023 VI 16, 1] 26 (V I 2023) (citation omitted)
The Supreme Court reasoned that by sua sponte considering the motions to withdraw as
substantive evidence without ﬁrst advising the parties of its intention to do so, the Court essentially
 deprived Davis of his right to be heard ” Id , 1| 30

        1| [4   Davis ﬁled his 2024 Bail Motion on January 25, 2024, wherein he requests that the
Court permit his release into the third party custody of his sister, Jacqueline Davis Wathey, upon
the signing of an unsecured bond in the amount of $250 000

3 Order (Apr 22, 2022) (setting hearing for May 24, 2022, on the Renewed Motion following the Supreme
Court’s remand) That hearing was delayed, ultimately until October 26, 2022, as between April 2022 and
October 2022, eight different attorneys moved to be relieved as Defendant’s counsel
People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jimmy Dam, SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                          2024 VI SUPER 16U
Page 5 of 10

        1| l5   Following remand, the Court conducted a hearing on March 20, 2024, on Davis 3
2022 Bail Motion and 2024 Bail Motion, wherein Ms Davis Wathey testiﬁed that she was willing
to act in the capacity of third party custodian Davis Watley agreed to have Davis maintain his
residence with her and her bed ridden mother, Sheila Davis, for whom she acts as sole caregiver,
at their home in Williams Delight, Frederiksted Davis Wathey testiﬁed that she was employed
full time in Christiansted Town and that, if Davis were to be released, she would not be at home
Monday to Friday from 8 00 a m 5 00 p m
       1| 16 At the hearing, the People voiced acceptance of the modiﬁed pretrial conditions,
but only with a 24 hour GPS monitor Aﬁer the hearing the same day, however the People
resubmitted previously ﬁled responses dated August 17 2020 and June 1 l 202l opposing
Defendant’s proposed modiﬁed release conditions, arguing that Davis poses a risk of physical
harm to the community and is a ﬂight risk 9
                                         LEGAL STANDARD

        1| 17 The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution addresses pretrial release
by providing that ‘ excessive bail shall not be required ’ The Eighth Amendment is applicable to
the United States Virgin Islands through the Revised Organic Act Karpouzw v Gov t Qfthe VI
36 V l 132 139 n 14 (D V I 1997) ( The Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
14th Amendment are made applicable to the Virgin Islands under section 3 of the Revised Organic
Act of 1954 ) Todmann \ People 57 V l 540 545 n 3 (VI 2012)( Congress has extended the
Eighth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Virgin
Islands through section 3 of the Revised Organic Act of 1954) Murrell v People 54 V I 338 351
n 6 (V I 20l0) Tobal v People 51 V l 147 15] (V I 2009) Browne v People 50 V I 241 256
(V I 2008)
        ﬁ 18   Section 3 0f the Revised Organic Act of I954, the defacto constitution of the Virgin
Islands guarantees that [3]“ persons shall be bailable by sufﬁcient sureties in the case of criminal
offenses, except for ﬁrst degree murder or any capital offense when the proof is evident or the
presumption great 48 l S C § IS6l see also 5 V I C § 3504a Bail is further governed by V I
R Crim P 5 l which states that, ‘ [t]he court shall impose the least restrictive non exhaustive
range of conditions of release that will reasonably protect the community from risk of physical
harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial
process[ ] V l Crim R 5 I(b)
       1] I9 The primary purpose of bail is to safeguard the court’s role in adjudicating the
innocence or guilt of defendants United States \ Salerno, 481 U S 739, 753 (1987) Bail that is

9 Also on March 20, 2024, Davis ﬁled a Motion to Deem Motion to Modify Pre trial Release Conceded
Due to People’s Failure to Respond Therein Davis argues that in failing to ﬁle their opposition by February
14, 2024 (the deadline indicated in the Court 5 scheduling Order), the People have waived their right to
object to the 2024 Bail Motion All the content of those ﬁlings was already a part of the record, and nothing
untimely ﬁled is considered by the Court As such, Davis 3 Motion to Deem Conceded is denied
People 0ftlze Virgin Islands v Jimmy Davis, SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                      2024 VI SUPER l6U
Page 6 of 10

set at a ﬁgure higher than reasonably calculated to fulﬁll this purpose is “excessive” under the
Eighth Amendment Stack v Boyle 342 U S l 5 (1951) Any bail or conditions of release that
are not tailored to achieve the purpose of bail are considered excessive and therefore
unconstitutional   Ricarai People 57VI 659 667(V1 2012) (citing 48 U SC § 1561)
       1|20      [J]udges may consider the risk of ﬂight, danger to society, or both, ’ when
resolving the question of the adequacy of bail, however, judges may not use such considerations
to deny bail entirely Tobal v People 51 VI at 156 57

       1] 21  “Whether bail is set at a level to adequately ensure the defendant 5 presence at court
depends on whether the defendant is a ﬂight risk People v Rzonda 21 V1 SUPER 31 1| 1 l (V 1
Super Ct 2021) (citing Tubal 51 V1 at 156 57) Factors that may be considered when evaluating
whether a defendant is a ﬂight risk include
       Potential length of the defendant’s sentence if convicted, prior use of false identities or
       deceptive means by which the defendant may evade government detection if attempting to
       ﬂee, the risk of retaliation from others which incentivizes the defendant to ﬂee, the
       defendant 3 citizenship status, the defendant 8 employment status, the defendant’s history
       of travel, the defendant 8 ties to the jurisdiction, and whether the defendant has
       considerable contacts or ties to family members outside ofjurisdiction
       Id (internal citations omitted)
        1122 The adequacy of bail conditions is also affected by whether the defendant is a
danger to the community [d at 1] 13 Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, “the
nature of the charges, the defendant’s criminal history, the defendant’s history of violence, a prior
court order to attend anger management and the defendant’s history of mental illness ’ 1d (internal
citations omitted) But cf. People i Simmonds 48 VI 320 329 (VI Super Ct 2009) (the
defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, thus pending charges cannot necessarily
determine danger to the community)
       1123 These considerations appertain with equal force to a motion to reduce bail or
modify pretrial release conditions as to the initial bail determination at the outset of proceedings
Davis v People, 2022 VI 8, 1] 1] 1n resolving a motion to modify bail and pretrial release
conditions, the court must make an individualized determination to ensure that bail is not excessive
and must tailor the bail, or conditions of release, to achieve that purpose Rzeara v People, 57 V 1
at 667 Furthermore, an order establishing or modifying release conditions cannot be ‘ based on ‘a
mere recitation of relevant criteria," but rather ‘ should clearly explain why those criteria support
the ultimate bail amount or other release conditions ” Id at 666 ‘ [W]here a defendant’s new
motion includes additional evidence or new and different proffers the court should [] provide
reasons for retaining the bail conditions as initially set” or, by implication, for the modiﬁed
conditions Id at 667 Nonetheless, the court uses its discretion in reaching a well reasoned,
individualized determination People v Rzonda, 2021 V1 SUPER 31, 1| 6 See People v Saldana
No ST 14 CR F187 2015 WL 301491 at *4 (V 1 Super Ct Jan 16 2015) (unpublished)
People ofthe Vlrgm Islands v Jimmy Dams SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                      2024 VI SUPER l6U
Page 7 of 10

(“conditions of release rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, ’ (citing Rteara 57 V I at
668 (noting that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the
trial court 5 decision ))

        1| 24   Ultimately, any bail or conditions of release that are not tailored to ensure the
defendant’s presence at trial, protect the community from harm, and assure the integrity of the
judicial process, are considered excessive and thus, unconstitutional See Stack 342 U S at 3,
Cartms v People 6| V I 257 260 (V I 2014) (quoting Rzeara 57 V I at 667 (citing section 3 of
the Revised Organic Act))

                                           DISCUSSION
    I       Risk of Flight
        1| 25   When making a bail determination, a court must ensure that bail is “set at a level to
adequately ensure the defendant’s presence at court Rzonda, 2021 VI SUPER 3], 1| 1 l Factors
the Court may consider that are relevant to this matter include potential length of sentence if
convicted, prior use of false identities, risk of retaliation from others which incentivizes ﬂight,
Defendant’s citizenship status, employment status, history of travel, ties to the jurisdiction, and
whether Defendant has considerable contacts outside the jurisdiction Id
        1] 26   Here, the potential sentence for a ﬁrst degree rape conviction is signiﬁcant, ranging
from IO to 30 years This factor increases the risk that Defendant may not appear, thus weighing
in favor of a higher bail amount There is evidence in the record to indicate that Davis has used
aliases in the past In fact, Davis is reported to have used the alias Michael Rivera during a
telephone inquiry to the Superior Court Clerk’s ofﬁce (Complaint No 17 A 1 1951) Thus, the record
indicates that in an ofﬁcial communication with the Court, Davis used an alias to evade
identiﬁcation while seeking infomation on the status of a pending case in which he was involved
This factor weighs in favor of a higher bail amount
        1| 27   In his own ﬁling, Davis has referred to his ‘ lengthy and contentious history ’ with
VIPD October 24, 2022 Addendum, at 8 He claims that his reactions to contacts with police
ofﬁcers may have been motivated not by “an unwillingness to appear” in court, but rather because
he may have feared VIPD retaliation against him At the October 26, 2022 hearing, Davis’s counsel
reiterated his position that Davis has had a bad relationship with police Thus, by Davis’s own
admission, he has a “history of ﬂeeing ﬁ‘om the VIPD        on two or three occasions    ” and ‘has
been a thorn in the side of many in the criminal justice system ’ Id Davis 8 admitted fear of
potential VIPD retaliation against him may provide motivation to again seek to evade authorities,
and this factor also weights in favor of a higher bail amount
        1| 28    As a St Croix native and lifetime resident, Davis is a United States and Virgin
Islands citizen with family members, including his mother, who reside in St Croix This factor
weighs in favor of a lower bail amount because it decreases the likelihood that Davis would leave
the jurisdiction
People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jimmy Dams, SX 2020 CR 00098
Memorandum Opinion                                                      2024 VI SUPER l6U
Page 8 of 10

        1] 29 Davis is unemployed While the record demonstrates that Davis has been in and out
of local and federal custody for much of his adult life, this factor is analyzed on the basis of a
defendant s employment status, not the reasons underlying that status Thus, since Davis lacks
employment, the Court ﬁnds that this status weighs against assuring his presence when required
to appear in court, and this factor also weighs in favor of a higher bail amount
       1] 30 The record supports Davis’s contention that he has strong ties to the jurisdiction
However, Davis admits that he has attempted to ﬂee law enforcement multiple times The District
Court noted that those attempts have gone so far as to brandish a weapon at a police ofﬁcer and
ramming his car into a marked police vehicle during a pursuit Dam 2010 U S Dist LEXIS 59354
at *2 3

        1] 31   Davis argues that ‘ for all his arrests and convictions there is no record before this
Court that Davis has any ‘failures to appear for court or that he violated any condition of release
prompting revocation and return to custody Addendum, at 2 In addition to conceding that he has
sought to ﬂee from law enforcement ofﬁcers, Davis also admits that he has ‘ made unseemly and
unacted upon threats to others involved in the criminal justice system ” Id at 8 Therefore in
view of these facts, Davis’s contention that ‘ there is no record before this Court that Davis has any
failures to appear for court, ’ rings especially hollow
        1] 32 The record ﬁthher reﬂects that Davis was released from federal custody on March
27, 2020, and that by March 31, 2020, Davis had an active federal warrant against him for failure
to report to probation Just three days later, on April 3, 2020, the alleged rape at issue in this case
took place Not only does this series of events demonstrate that Davis appears to have been in
deﬁance of a federal court order when he allegedly committed the instant offense, but it further
decreases the Court’s conﬁdence that he will appear when required in future proceedings in this
matter
    1]        Danger to the Community
          1] 33   Davis is correct that the prosecution’s decision to charge the defendant with a
serious crime standing alone Without more should have no bearing on the amount ofbail or the
conditions of pretrial release ” Moran v People, 2022 V19, 1] 17 (V I 2022) (emphasis in original)
Indeed, it is well established both in caselaw and as a foundational principle of criminal law that
a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and, as such, the charges a defendant is facing cannot
be the sole basis for a court 3 decision regarding pretrial release While Davis is correct to state
that one of the objectives of bail is ‘ to ensure a defendant appears at trial, ’ he ignores another
purpose of bail described in Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure 5 1(b) to “reasonably
protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons ” See Addendum, at 2

       1] 34 While the nature of the charges against a defendant may not be the sole factor a
court examines in setting bail, the charges may hold some place in the analysis See Rzonda, 2021
VI SUPER 31, 1] 13 Here, because the record is replete with other information to consider, the
April 15, 2024
        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                    District of St. Croix

People of the Virgin Islands v.          Case Number: SX-2020-CR-00098
Jimmy Davis                              Charges: 14 V.I.C. 1701 - Rape 1st Degree
                                         14 V.I.C. 1701 - Rape 1st Degree
                                         14 V.I.C. 1708 - Unlawful Sexual Contact
                                         1st Degree
                                         14 V.I.C. 442 - Burglary First Degree

                            NOTICE of ENTRY
                                   of
                           Memorandum Opinion
To Amie M. Simpson, Esq.                    Howard Lee Phillips, Esq.
:

                     Please take notice that on April 15, 2024
         a(n)                  Memorandum Opinion
                  dated      April 15, 2024       was/were entered
                      by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated    April 15, 2024                                    Tamara Charles
 :
                                                          Clerk of the Court
                                              By:

                                                           Brianna Primus
                                                            Court Clerk II