IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN SCT-Crim-2025-0207
THE INTEREST OF J.C. Re: ST-2025-JD-00029
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER
TO: Justices of the Supreme Court
Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
Darren John-Baptiste, Esq.
Gordon C. Rhea, Esq.
Pamela R. Tepper, Esq.
Daniel Morris, Esq.
Dalila E. Patton, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
Tamara Charles, Clerk of the Superior Court
Supreme Court Law Clerks
Supreme Court Secretaries
Order Book
Westlaw
Lexis/Michie
Please take notice that on September 24, 2026, a(n) Order dated September 24, 2026,
was entered by the Clerk in the above-entitled matter.
Dated: September 24, 2026
DALILA E. PATTON, ESQ.
Clerk of the Court
By:
Deputy Clerk II
For Publication
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN S. Ct. Crim. No. 2025-0207 THE INTEREST OF: J.C Re: Super. Ct. No. ST-2025-JD-00029
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas & St. John
Superior Court Judge: Hon. Debra S. Watlington
Filed: September 24, 2026
Cite as: 2026 VI 21
BEFORE MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; IVE ARLINGTON SWAN
Associate Justice; and HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice
APPEARANCES
Darren John-Baptiste, Esq
Darren John-Baptiste, PLLC
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802
Attorney for Appellant/Defendant
Gordon C. Rhea, Esq
Pamela R. Tepper, Esq
Daniel Morris, Esq
V.I. Department of Justice
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802
Attorneys for Appellee/Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
WILLOCKS, Associate Justice
AND NOW, consistent with the Opinion of even date, it is hereby
ORDERED that the two August 8, 2025 orders entered by the Family Division of the Virgin
Islands Superior Court (“Family Division”)—(i) an order denying without prejudice Appellant
J.C.’s August 7, 2025 motion for a stay of proceedings to obtain a competency evaluation filed
pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 2509(b) and (ii) an order mandating the transfer of the matter from the People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C.
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Judgment
Page 2 of 2
Family Division to the Criminal Division of the Virgin Islands Superior Court pursuant to 5
V.I.C. § 2508(b)(4)—are AFFIRMED, it is further
ORDERED that copies be directed to the appropriate parties
SO ORDERED this 24" day of September, 2026
BY THE COURT
LL dk UL
HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS
Associate Justice
ATTEST
DALILA E. PATTON, ESQ
Clerk Woe:
By ; oo LY,
Deputy Clerk II
Dated é \ ESS W®As
Copies (with accompanying Opinion of the Court) to
Justices of the Supreme Court
Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
Darren John-Baptiste, Esq
Gordon C. Rhea, Esq
Pamela R. Tepper, Esq
Daniel Morris, Esq
Dalila E. Patton, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
Tamara Charles, Clerk of the Superior Court
Supreme Court Law Clerks
Supreme Court Secretaries
Order Book
Westlaw
Lexis/Michie
For Publication
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN S. Ct. Crim. No. 2025-0207
THE INTEREST OF: J.C Re: Super. Ct. No. ST-2025-JD-00029
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas & St. John
Superior Court Judge: Hon. Debra S. Watlington
Filed: September 24, 2026
Cite as: 2026 VI 21
BEFORE MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice, IVE ARLINGTON SWAN
Associate Justice; and HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice
APPEARANCES
Darren John-Baptiste, Esq
Darren John-Baptiste, PLLC
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802
Attorney for Appellant/Defendant
Gordon C. Rhea, Esq
Pamela R. Tepper, Esq
Daniel Morris, Esq
V.I. Department of Justice
St. Thomas, V.1. 00802
Attorneys for Appellee/Plaintiff.
OPINION OF THE COURT
WILLOCKS, Associate Justice
qi Appellant J.C. (“J.C.”) appeals from two August 8, 2025 orders entered by the Family
Division of the Virgin Islands Superior Court (“Family Division”): {i) an order denying without
prejudice his August 7, 2025 motion for a stay of proceedings to obtain a competency evaluation
filed pursuant to 5 V.ILC. § 2509(b) (“Stay/Competency Order”); and (ii) an order mandating the
transfer of the matter from the Family Division to the Criminal Division of the Virgin Islands People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of 11
Superior Court pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 2508(b)(4) (“Transfer Order’). For the reasons that follow,
we affirm both orders
I. BACKGROUND
42 In August 2025, the People of the Virgin Islands (“People”) filed an initial juvenile
complaint, subsequently amended, charging J.C.—‘who at the time of the alleged offense was 16
years old”—-with the following offenses: Counts I and Il-Aggravated rape in the second degree, in
violation of 14 V.L.C. § 1700a(a); Count HI-Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree, in violation
of 14 V.I.C. § 1708(a)(1); Count [V-Obscene internet contact with a minor, in violation of 14
V.LC. § 490(a); Count V-Visual medium depicting sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 14
V.1.C. § 488(a)(1); Count VI-Computer pornography, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 489(b)(1)(B)
Counts VII and VIII-Child abuse, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 505; and Count [X-Aggravated child
abuse, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 506(2)
q3 Contemporaneously with the filing of the juvenile complaint and amended juvenile
complaint, the People filed a motion for mandatory transfer and an amended motion for mandatory
transfer, respectively. In their amended motion for mandatory transfer, the People argued that
“fpjursuant to... 5 V.L.C. § 2508(b), the court shall order that the juvenile be transferred to a court
of competent criminal jurisdiction for proper criminal proceedings when that juvenile is alleged to
have committed any of the crimes enumerated in 5 V.LC. § 2508(b)(4), including Aggravated
Rape.”!
' Title 5, section 2508(b)(4) of the Virgin Islands Code provides
(b) Ifa child or adult is charged with an offense which would be a felony if committed by
an adult, and the child or adult was fourteen years of age or older at the time of the alleged
offense, the Family Division of the Superior Court, after a determination of probable cause,
People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of 11
44 Thereafter, on August 7, 2025, J.C. filed a motion for a stay of proceedings to obtain a
competency evaluation (“Stay/Competency Motion”) pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 2509(b), which
provides in pertinent part that “[w]hen there are grounds to believe the child is substantially
retarded or mentally ill, the court shall stay the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an
examination.”
q5 On August 8, 2025, the Family Division held a hearing at which the court and the parties
addressed, inter alia, J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion before turning to the People’s amended
motion for mandatory transfer. After denying J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion from the bench, the
court proceeded with the transfer hearing and—upon finding probable cause as to Counts I through
VII and Count [X? (J.A. 078)—concluded that the transfer of the matter from the Family Division
to the Criminal Division of the Virgin Islands Superior Court (“Criminal Division”) was
mandatory under 5 V.1.C. § 2508(b)(4). The court subsequently memorialized its rulings in two
separate orders entered that same day: (i) the Stay/Competency Order, which denied without
shall transfer the person for proper criminal proceedings to a court of competent criminal
jurisdiction when
(4) the offense now charged is one of the following offenses, which would be a felony if
committed by an adult: murder in the first degree or an attempt to do so; rape in the first
degree or an attempt to do so; aggravated rape or an attempt to do so; possession or use of
a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence irrespective of whether the minor has
been previously adjudicated to be a delinquent
5 V.LC. § 2508(b)(4)
2 At the hearing, the court indicated that it did not “see the difference between Count VII and Count VIII, and so I only find one count, probable cause for one count of child abuse under Count VII” and did not “find the basis for Count VIII which appears to be the same as Count VII and just seems duplicative
People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 4 of 11
prejudice J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion “for failure to establish good cause under 5 V.I.C. §
2509(b)”; and (ii) the Transfer Order, which transferred the matter to the Criminal Division
46 On August 10, 2025, J.C. filed a timely notice of appeal from “the two orders of
the...Family [] Division dated and entered on August8, 2025.” See V.I. R. App. P. 5(d) (“Appeals
in juvenile matters to the Supreme Court from the Superior Court may be taken as a matter of right
The time to appeal and related procedures are governed by Rule 5(b), Appeals in Criminal
Cases...”); V.I. R. App. P. 5(b)(1) (“In a criminal case, a defendant shall file the notice of appeal
in the Supreme Court within 30 days after the entry of (i) the judgment or order appealed from or
(11) a notice of appeal by the Government.”)
If. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
{7 The Revised Organic Act of 1954 provides this Court with appellate jurisdiction over “all
appeals from the decisions of the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law ” 48
U.S.C. § 1613a(d). Title 4, section 32(a) of the Virgin Islands Code vests this Court with
jurisdiction over “all appeals arising from final judgments, final decrees or final orders of the
Superior Court [of the Virgin Islands], or as otherwise provided by law.” 4 V.LC. § 32(a). “An
order transferring a juvenile from the Family Division to the Criminal Division of the Superior
Court is a final appealable order.” Jn re S.T., 51 V.I. 420, 422 (V.I. 2009) (citing 5 V.LC. §
2508(d); In re A.M., 30 V.1. 442 (3d Cir. 1994))
48 Because the Family Division denied J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion and thereafter entered
the Transfer Order mandating the transfer of the matter from Family Division to the Criminal
People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: LC. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of 11
Division pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 2508(b)(4)—-which constitutes a final appealable order—this Court
has jurisdiction over J.C.’s appeal
B. Overview of Issues
4? In his appellant’s brief, J.C. argues that the Family Division erred in denying his
Stay/Competency Motion but advances no independent argument that the court erred in entering
the Transfer Order. Nevertheless, J.C. seeks reversal of both the Stay/Competency Order and the
Transfer Order, thereby indicating that his challenge to the Transfer Order is premised solely on
his contention that the court should have granted his Stay/Competency Motion and stayed the
proceedings for a competency evaluation rather than mandating transfer. Accordingly, any
challenge to the Transfer Order is implicit, derivative of, and limited to his argument concerning
the denial of the Stay/Competency Motion
C. Standard of Review
910 The standard of review for examining the Superior Court's application of law—including
constitutional questions and statutory interpretation—is plenary, while factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. See St. Thomas-St. John Bd. of Elections v. Daniel, 49 V.I. 322, 329 (V.I
2007); see also, Lopez v. People, 60 V.1. 534, 536 (V.I. 2014) (citing Shoy v. People, 55 V.1. 919
925 (V.I. 2011)). “Clear error is a very deferential standard; an appellate court should only reverse
a factual determination as being clearly erroneous if it is completely devoid of minimum
evidentiary support or ... bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data.” Jn re
Estate of Small, 57 V.1. 416, 430 (V.1. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
411 “Because the decision to transfer a juvenile for prosecution as an adult is committed to the
sound discretion of the trial court, we review that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” /n re People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of 11
S.T., 51 V.L at 422 (V.I. 2009) (quoting United States v. A.R., 38 F.3d 699, 702 (3d Cir. 1994))
“(A]buse of discretion is evaluated ‘on the reasonableness of the trial court [ruling]. If the trial
court could reasonably conclude as it did and the ruling is one based on sound judgment with
regard to what is right under the circumstances, it will not be disturbed absent a showing that some
facet on the ruling is arbitrary or capricious.’” Faustin v. People, 2024 VI 23, (quoting
Milligan v. People, 69 V.I. 779, 805 n.4 (V.I. 2018) (Swan, J., concurring in part, dissenting in
part) (quoting Emerson v. State, 2016 WY 44, 371 P.3d 150, 153 (Wyo. 2016)). “A trial court acts
in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner if its ruling is founded upon a clearly erroneous
finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law[,] or an improper application of law to fact or if its
actions were clearly contrary to reason and not justified by the evidence. Faustin, (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Appleton vy. Harrigan, 61 V.1. 262, 268 (V.1. 2014)
(quoting Stevens v. People, 55 V.1. 550, 556 (V.I. 2010))
D. The Stay/Competency Order: Whether the Family Division
Erred in Denying J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion
412 The crux of J.C.’s argument on appeal is that the record established ‘‘grounds to believe
the child is substantially retarded or mentally ill,” thereby requiring the Superior Court, under 5
V.LC. § 2509(b), to stay the proceedings to obtain a competency examination. In support of his
argument, J.C. points to the following evidence: (i) Detective Jernings Abraham’s affidavit in
support of an arrest warrant, which indicated that “A.B. reported that although she had no prior
contact with [J.C.] he allegedly said he was getting revenge on her” and that “[J.C.] also told [A.B.]
that someone was doing to him what he was doing to her”; and (11) J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion,
which his counsel “‘averred that fafter] subsequent meetings with [J.C.], counsel has unresolved People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 11
concerns about his mental health” and that “[J.C.’s} family has revealed challenges and concerns
going back approximately six (6) years.” Thus, J.C. concludes that the Family Division erred in
denying his Stay/Competency Motion and requests that this Court “reverse...the transfer
order...and direct that the matter be stayed and an evaluation be conducted.”
413 In response, the People argues that the Family Division did not err in denying J.C.’s
Stay/Competency Motion because “it properly found it had no grounds to believe J.C. was
mentally ill.” In support, the People note that J.C.’s motion was “unsupported by medical
documentation or sworn statement and relied almost entirely on unsworn attorney representations”
and that the Family Division “had directly observed and interacted with J.C. in open court.”
Accordingly, the People request that this Court affirm the Family Division’s Stay/Competency
Order and Transfer Order
414 In its Stay/Competency Order, the Family Division denied without prejudice J.C.’s
Stay/Competency Motion, explaining that
the Motion was not supported by any factual affidavit, medical documentation, or even
swom statements from the parents to corroborate the existence of a mental illness or
intellectual disability.'! The Motion consisted of a single page of conclusory assertions and
did not establish a sufficient basis to invoke the mandatory stay provisions of 5 V.I.C. §
2509(b). Accordingly, the Court found no good cause to delay the proceedings and denied
the Motion to Stay
'See VI. R. Civ. P. 6-1(d)(1)
415 Although the Family Division referenced Rule 6-1(d)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of
Civil Procedure, the procedural requirements governing J.C.’s motion are set forth in the Virgin
Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Family Division
Procedure provides that ‘“[u]nless the court orders the use of other procedures, prehearing motions
shall be governed by the provisions of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of 11
6-4, 6-5 and, in delinquency, abuse and neglect proceedings, by the provisions of Virgin Islands
Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, adapted as necessary.” V.I. R. FAM. P. 11. Because this matter
involves a delinquency proceeding, Rule 12 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure
(“Criminal Procedure Rule 12”) applies. Criminal Procedure Rule 12 provides that “[a] party may
raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a
trial on the merits” and further states that “Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion.” V.I. R. CRIM. P
12(b)(1). In turn, Rule 47 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Criminal Procedure
Rule 47”) sets forth the procedural requirements governing motions, including that a motion must
“state the grounds on which it is based, the legal authorities upon which it relies, and the relief or
order sought,” V.I. R. CRIM. P. 47(b), and “[t]he moving party must serve any supporting affidavit
with the motion,” V.I. R. CRIM. P. 47(d)
{16 In his two-page Stay/Competency Motion, J.C. asserts several conclusory statements? but
provides no legal analysis or authority explaining how those assertions established “grounds to
believe [J.C.] is substantially retarded or mentally ill” within the meaning of 5 V.LC. § 2509(b)
See 5 V.LC. § 2509(b) (“When there are grounds to believe the child is substantially retarded or
mentally ill, the court shall stay the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an examination.”)
3 Specifically, J.C. asserted in his Stay/Competency Motion
In support hereof, counsel shows that after reviewing the Affidavit submitted in support of
the arrest warrant in the above captioned matter which provides in paragraph 39 that “A.B
conveyed that {J.C.] claimed that he was also being blackmailed by his friend; the unknown
individual who operated the three Snapchat accounts and subsequent meetings with [J.C.],
counsel has unresolved concerns about his mental health. Moreover, further discussions
with [J.C.’s] family has revealed challenges and concerns going back approximately six
(6) years.”
(J.A. 147)
People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: IC. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 9 of 11
Moreover, although J.C.’s motion relied on counsel’s “unresolved concerns about [J.C.’s} mental
health” and J.C.’s family’s unspecified “challenges and concerns going back approximately six (6)
years,” those claims were unsupported by affidavits
417 At the August 8, 2025 hearing, J.C. merely “proffer[ed] to the [cJourt the same facts that
[he] set forth in the motion,” (J.A. 013), but likewise failed to provide any legal analysis or
authority explaining how those assertions established “grounds to believe the child is substantially
retarded or mentally ill” within the meaning of 5 V.I.C. § 2509(b). As the Family Division pointed
out at the hearing, J.C. provided “nothing in support of this motion... [t}here is no affidavit, no
sworn statement, no medical records, nothing
418 In summary, J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion lacked legal analysis, citation to authority,
and evidentiary support as required under Criminal Procedure Rule 47. See V.I. R. CRIM. P. 47(b),
(d). J.C. cannot—and should not—expect the Family Division to “make a movant's arguments for
him when he has failed to do so.” Joseph v. Joseph, 2015 V.1. LEXIS 43, *5 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr
23, 2015) (citations omitted)); see Encarnacion v. Testamark, 78 V.1. 541, 548-49 (V.I. 2023)
(“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that our adversarial system of justice is premised on the
parties presenting facts and legal arguments before a neutral and relatively passive judge, and that
it is extraordinarily disfavored for courts to forsake their roles as arbiters of legal questions
presented and argued by the parties before them and instead sit as self-directed boards of legal
inquiry and research.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); accord Joseph v. Legislature of the
V.1., 2017 V.I. LEXIS 175, *4 n.3 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 12, 2017) (“As the Court is not required to
make arguments for parties this alone is enough for this Court to deny this claim.” (citations
omitted)). “The rules that require a litigant to brief and support his arguments before the People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: J.C. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 10 of 11
Superior Court, are not mere formalistic requirements. They exist to give the Superior Court the
opportunity to consider, review, and address an argument[.]” Simpson v. Golden, 56 V.I. 272, 280
(V.1. 2012)
q 19 Although the Family Division referenced Rule 6-1(d)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of
Civil Procedure* rather than Criminal Procedure Rule 47 in denying J.C.’s Stay/Competency
Motion, it nevertheless did not err in denying the motion. “It is well established that, under the
‘right result, wrong reason’ doctrine, where the record otherwise supports the trial court's
judgment, an appellate court may affirm that judgment for reasons other than those relied upon by
the trial court, even if the trial court's reasons are erroneous.” Antilles School v. Lembach, 64 V.I
400, 438 n.23 (V.L. 2016) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the Stay/Competency Order
E. The Transfer Order: Whether the Family Division Erred in Mandating the
Transfer of the Matter to the Criminal Division
420 As noted above, J.C.’s challenge to the Transfer Order is wholly dependent on his
contention that the Family Division erred in denying his Stay/Competency Motion. Because we
conclude that the Family Division did not err in denying that motion, we likewise conclude that
the court did not abuse its discretion and therefore did not err in transferring the matter to the
Criminal Division. See In re S.T., 51 V.I. at 422 (“Because the decision to transfer a juvenile for
* Rule 6-1(d)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides
When allegations of fact not appearing of record are relied upon in support of a party's
motion, response, or reply, unless the court grants permission for a different schedule for
the filing of supporting materials: all then-available affidavits and other documents
supporting the party's position shall be filed simultaneously with the motion, response or
reply
V.I. R. Civ. P. 6-1(d)(1)
People of the Virgin Islands in the
Interest of: LC. 2026 VI 21
SCT-CRIM-2025-0207
Opinion of the Court
Page 11 of 11
prosecution as an adult is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, we review that
decision only for an abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); see also Faustin, J 24 (“[A]buse of
discretion is evaluated ‘on the reasonableness of the trial court [ruling]. If the trial court could
reasonably conclude as it did and the ruling is one based on sound judgment with regard to what
is right under the circumstances, it will not be disturbed absent a showing that some facet on the
ruling is arbitrary or capricious.’”’) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the Transfer Order
lI. CONCLUSION
421 The Family Division did not err in denying J.C.’s Stay/Competency Motion and mandating
the transfer of the matter to the Criminal Division. Thus, we affirm the Family Division’s
Stay/Competency Order and Transfer Order
Dated this 24" day of September, 2026
BY THE COURT
aeOTD W.L. WILLOCKS
Associate Justice
ATTEST
DALILA E. PATTON, ESQ
Clerk "OLE 1
By ZA
Deputy Clerk Il
es %, _~
Dated \ YY y YO INS