People of the Virgin Islands v. Jimmy Davis

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: SX-2020-CR-98
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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