Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz

Third Circuit

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz

131 F. App'x 873

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 2005

Docket04-4773

StatusUnpublished

This text of 131 F. App'x 873 (Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz, 131 F. App'x 873 (3d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Wilfredo Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. We will affirm.

While Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, prison officials charged him with violating prison regulations by repeatedly stabbing another inmate with a knife. The Bureau of Corrections Disciplinary Committee held a hearing after which it found Diaz guilty of violating prison regulations and placed him in administrative segregation for fifty-five days. For the stabbing, the Government then charged Diaz with assault in the third degree and with possession of a dangerous weapon. Diaz filed a motion to dismiss, which the Territorial Court denied. He went to trial and was found guilty on both counts.

Diaz argues that because he had already been tried and sanctioned by prison officials for the stabbing, the Government’s attempt to prosecute him violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3d Cir.1993). In Newby, we held that “a prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy *874 Clause purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Other Courts of Appeal to address the issue are in agreement. See United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, Diaz’s argument fails as a matter of law.

Accordingly, we affirm the Territorial Court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Wilfredo Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. We will affirm.

While Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, prison officials charged him with violating prison regulations by repeatedly stabbing another inmate with a knife. The Bureau of Corrections Disciplinary Committee held a hearing after which it found Diaz guilty of violating prison regulations and placed him in administrative segregation for fifty-five days. For the stabbing, the Government then charged Diaz with assault in the third degree and with possession of a dangerous weapon. Diaz filed a motion to dismiss, which the Territorial Court denied. He went to trial and was found guilty on both counts.

Diaz argues that because he had already been tried and sanctioned by prison officials for the stabbing, the Government’s attempt to prosecute him violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3d Cir.1993). In Newby, we held that “a prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy *874 Clause purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Other Courts of Appeal to address the issue are in agreement. See United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, Diaz’s argument fails as a matter of law.

Accordingly, we affirm the Territorial Court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. App'x 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/government-of-the-virgin-islands-v-diaz-ca3-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack