Desni Simmiolkjier v. Sonya Williams & Jose Ilarraza Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: October 27, 2020
• Docket: SX-20-RV-1
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX Deeni Simmiolkjier SX 20 RV l Appellant/Respondent

V

ACTION FOR MAGISTRATE APPEAL Sonya Williams and Jose Ilalraza Jr

Appellees/Petitionels

Cite as 2020 VI Sager 90U

Appearances

DESNI SIMMIOLKJIER Pro Se

KYE WALKER ESQ Attorney for Appellees Sonya Williams and Jose Harraza Jr

MEMORANDUM OPINION

‘11 1 THIS MATTER is before the Appellate D1vision of the Superior Court

on Appellant Desni Simmiolkjler s ( Ms Simmiolkjier ) Notice of Appeal of

a judgment entered against her by the Magistrate Division on January 27

2020 Ms Simmiolkjier asserts she was not afforded due process by the

Maglstrate Judge For the reasons stated below this Court will affirm the

ruling of the Magistrate Judge

I Factual and Procedural Background

‘11 2 On January 8 2020 Ms Simmiolkjier was accused of approaching

Sonya Williams ( Ms Wllhams ) and Jose Ilarraza Jr I Mr Ilarraza ] and

starting a verbal altercation The altercation escalated when Ms

Simmlolkjier retrieved her police baton and began waving 1t at Mr Ilarraza

m a threatening manner Ms Wllliams and Mr Ilarraza went to the police 2020 VI Super 90H station to file a report of Ms Simmiolkjier s behavior and were threatened

by Ms Simmiolkjier once more Ms Wllhams and Mr Ilarraza alleged that

Ms Simmiolkjier had verbally threatened both Ms Williams and Mr

Ilarraza at least once prior to the January 8 2020 incident

CH 3 On January 9 2020 Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza filed a Petition

for Protection Order against Ms Simmiolkjler The Petition alleged that

Ms Simmiolkjier had threatened and harassed Ms Williams and Mr

Ilarraza on several occasions In response to the Petition for Protection

Order a Temporary Stalkmg Relief Order was granted by the Magistrate

Judge on January 10 2020

C11 4 The matter was scheduled for a hearing on January 16 2020 At the

hearing Ms Wllliams and Mr Ilarra7a called three witnesses to

corroborate their version of the events that took place on January 8 2020

Ms Simmiolkjier did not present a witness and the matter was continued

until January 23 2020 The continuance was granted in order to allow

Ms Simmiolkjier an opportunity to present her own witnesses and any

supporting evidence to prove that she was being threatened and harassed

by Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza At the January 23 2020 hearing Ms

Simmiolkjier did not present a witness or proffer sufficient proof that she

was the party being harassed The Maglstrate Judge then entered a

Harassment Protection Order on behalf of Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza

on January 27 2020 The Harassment Protection Order prohiblted Ms

Simmiolkjier from contactmg or communicating with Ms Williams and Ms

IlaIraza Whether directly or indirectly The Harassment Protection Order

is in effect until January 23 2022 2020 VI Super 90U

‘11 5 Ms Simmiolkjier filed a Notice of Appeal of the Magistrate Judge 8

Order on February 4 2020 In her notice Ms Simmiolkjler asserted that

she was not given an opportunity to be heard because she was prohibited

from presenting evidence that Ms Williams and Mr Ilarraza threatened

her Ms Simmiolkjier claims this evidence was stored on her cell phone

which she was not permitted to bring to the courtroom

II Discussion

A Standard of Review

‘11 6 The Magistrate Division has original jurisdiction over ClVil stalking

complaints 5 V I C § 1473(a) accoranv1erv Treasure Bay VI Corp 67

VI 251 258 (VI Super Ct App Div 2017) Appeals from the Maglstrate

Division are filed in the Superior Court 4 V I C § 125 Petltlons to review

a decision from the Magistrate Division must be filed within ten (10) days

after entry of the order sought to be reviewed SUPER CT R 322 1(a)(2)(A)

Ms Simmiolkjiers Notice of Appeal filed on February 4 2020 is timely

Therefore the Appellate Division has appellate jurisdiction over this

matter

‘11 7 The Magistrate Judge is the finder of fact for all original JUI‘iSdlCtiOl’l

cases In re Estate of Small 57 VI 416 429 (V I 2012) Factual

determinations are reviewed for clear error whereas legal findings

statements of law and the application thereof are afforded plenary review

SUPER CT R 322 3(b)(1) and (2) ‘The Appellate Division cannot ignore

these standards of review because 1t would render the proceedings that

occurred in the Magistrate Division a complete nullity Williams v Bellot

70VI 38 47 48 (VI Super Ct App Div 2019) (citing Henry D Dennery 2020 v1 Super 90v 8 Ct C1v N0 2012 0130 2013VI Supreme LEXIS4 [WL] *2 (VI Jan

11 2013) (unpublished) Thus a ruling of the Magistrate Judge can only

be overturned when there is evidence that a factual determinatlon is

clearly erroneous A determination is Clearly erroneous When it is

completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support or bears no rational

relationship to the supportive evidentlary data Hodge v McGowan 50

VI 296 316[VI 2008}

B Due Process

‘11 8 The Revised Organic Act makes the Fourteenth Amendment

applicable to the US Virgin Islands 48 U S C § 1561 The Equal

Protection Clause made applicable to the U S Virgin Islands states {n10

law shall be enacted in the Virgin islands which shall deprive any person

of life liberty or property without due process of law or deny to any person

therein equal protection of the laws Id Ms Simmiolkjier claims that the

Magistrate Judge violated her due process rights This assertion is based

on Ms Simmiolkjier being prohibited from bringing her phone 1nto the

courtroom which contained her evidence of Ms Williams and Mr

Ilarrazas provocation towards her However this assertion is not

supported by evidence The record IS absent of any indication that Ms

Simmiolkjier informed the Magistrate Judge that she had evidence on her

phone and was prohlbited from presenting it to the Court Absent the

Magistrate Judge 5 knowledge of this information there is no support for

Ms Simmiolkjiers claims This Court finds no hams for her due process

violation claims 2020 VI Super 90U

‘11 9 The Magistrate Judge made his factual determinations based on the

evidence that was present and readily available The Witnesses testimony

at the initlal hearing provided more inSIght Into the confrontational nature

of the events on January 8 2020 It was based on thlS testimony that the

Magistrate Judge made his determinations when entering the Harassment

Protection Order The factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge are

not clearly erroneous since there is a minimum of evidentiary support as

required by Hodge Therefore there was sufficient evidence to support Ms

Williams and Mr Ilarraza 3 claim agalnst Ms Simmiolkjler

III Conclusion

‘11 10 For the reasons stated above the Magistrate Division 5 ruling to

grant a Harassment Protectlon Order in favor of Ms Williams and Mr

Ilarraza 1s AFFIRMED

DONE AND SO ORDERED this 27th d y of October 2020

H @9 flag ORABLE JOMO MEADE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the (90/ /)

By @222; 4/: urt Clerk

Date MW