plain error in Virgin Islands

2014For this Court to reverse a judgment of the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2013For this Court to reverse the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[sj substantial rights.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2012Since Ubiles was — and remains — binding on the Superior Court until and unless this Court expressly declines to adopt its interpretation of local law, the People cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error test, that any error be “plain.” See Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 366 (V.I. 2010) (explaining that an error is “plain” only if the error is obvious based on binding precedent or text of statute) (quoting United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)).

2012Williams thus cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error test, that any error be “plain.” See Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 366 (V.I. 2010) (explaining that an error is “plain” only if the error is clear under current law) (quoting United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)).

2025Thus, because these two phrases are interchangeable in this context, the Supreme Court’s analysis of the meaning and effect of the previous version of Rule 52(b) is equally applicable to the current, restyled version of the rule, and therefore equally applicable to the identical Virgin Islands rule as well '3 Indeed, as originally stated in United States v. Atkinson—the seminal decision in which the Supreme Court first articulated the plain error doctrine, and from which the language of Rule 52(b) is derived—the plain error doctrine was described as providing an exception to the general rule t

2017Ed. 2d 508 (1993)); see also Williams v. People, 56 V.I. 821, 830-31 (V.I. 2012) (observing that a plain error is “clear and obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute” (quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 , 130 S. Ct. 2159 , 176 L.

2012Since Ubiles was — and remains — binding on the Superior Court until and unless this Court expressly declines to adopt its interpretation of local law, the People cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error test, that any error be “plain.” See Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 366 (V.I. 2010) (explaining that an error is “plain” only if the error is obvious based on binding precedent or text of statute) (quoting United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)).

2012Williams thus cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error test, that any error be “plain.” See Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 366 (V.I. 2010) (explaining that an error is “plain” only if the error is clear under current law) (quoting United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)).

2017App. R 22(m) (“Issues that were ... not raised or objected to before the Superior Court ... are deemed waived for purposes of appeal.”); Galloway v. People, 57 V.I. 693 , 709 n.8 (V.I. 2012) (“Rules 4(h) and 22(m), when read in tandem, simply adopt the plain error standard of review.”).

2015Instead, the rules of this Court require only that an argument be “fairly presented to the Superior Court [in order to] be presented for review on appeal.” V.I.S.CT.R. 4(h); see also V.I.S.Ct.R. 22(m) (“Issues that were . . . not raised or objected to before the Superior Court ... are deemed waived for purposes of appeal.”); Galloway v. People, 57 V.I. 693 , 709 n.8 (V.I. 2012) (“Rules 4(h) and 22(m), when read in tandem, simply adopt the plain error standard of review.”).

2025Thus, because these two phrases are interchangeable in this context, the Supreme Court’s analysis of the meaning and effect of the previous version of Rule 52(b) is equally applicable to the current, restyled version of the rule, and therefore equally applicable to the identical Virgin Islands rule as well '3 Indeed, as originally stated in United States v. Atkinson—the seminal decision in which the Supreme Court first articulated the plain error doctrine, and from which the language of Rule 52(b) is derived—the plain error doctrine was described as providing an exception to the general rule t

2017Ed. 2d 508 (1993)); see also Williams v. People, 56 V.I. 821, 830-31 (V.I. 2012) (observing that a plain error is “clear and obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute” (quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 , 130 S. Ct. 2159 , 176 L.

2017Ed. 2d 602 (2013); Brown v. People, 56 V.I. 695, 695 (V.I. 2012) (“[Wjhen a criminal defendant fails to object to a Superior Court decision or order, this Court ordinarily only reviews for plain error, provided that the challenge has been forfeited rather than waived.”).

2012Under the plain error standard, an appellate court may correct an error not raised at trial if it finds 1) an error, 2) that is plain, 3) that affects substantial rights, and 4) if, in its discretion, “ ‘the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.’ ” Dobson, 419 F.3d at 236 (quoting United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d 200, 206-07 , 45 V.I. 800 (3d Cir. 2004)); see also Brown v. People, 56 V.I. 695, 701 (V.I. 2012).

2015Double Jeopardy and Section 104 Although Estick has not challenged his sentence on appeal, we have consistently held that “illegal sentences, by their very nature, fulfill the requirements of the plain error test in that they both affect a criminal defendant’s substantial rights and ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Charles, 60 V.I. at 842 (quoting Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 327, 336 (V.I. 2010)).

2014Sentencing Although Charles has not challenged his sentence on appeal, we have consistently held that “illegal sentences, by their very nature, fulfill the requirements of the plain error test in that they both affect a criminal defendant’s substantial rights and ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 327, 336 (V.I. 2010) (citing Dunlop v. People, S. Ct. Crim.

2014United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 309 (3d Cir. 2011).

2013Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716, 721 (V.I. 2012); Galloway v. People, 57 V.I. 693, 699 (V.I. 2012); United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 309 (3d Cir. 2011).

2013The plain error standard states that an appellate court may correct an error not raised at trial if it finds: 1) an error, 2) that is plain, 3) that affects substantial rights, and 4) if, in its discretion it finds that “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716, 721 (V.I. 2012) (citing United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005)).

2013The plain error standard states that an appellate court may correct an error not raised at trial if it finds: 1) an error, 2) that is plain, 3) that affects substantial rights, and 4) if, in its discretion it finds that “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716, 721 (V.I. 2012) (quoting United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005)).

2025Virgin Islands Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) states: “A plain error that affects substantial nghts may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.” The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that the identical provision in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) “defines a single category of forfeited-but-reversible error.”'' United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

2025Thus, because these two phrases are interchangeable in this context, the Supreme Court’s analysis of the meaning and effect of the previous version of Rule 52(b) is equally applicable to the current, restyled version of the rule, and therefore equally applicable to the identical Virgin Islands rule as well '3 Indeed, as originally stated in United States v. Atkinson—the seminal decision in which the Supreme Court first articulated the plain error doctrine, and from which the language of Rule 52(b) is derived—the plain error doctrine was described as providing an exception to the general rule t

2015“For this Court to reverse the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights.” Phipps, 54 V.I. at 546 (citations and internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

2013For this Court to reverse the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, “there must be (1) ‘error,’(2) that is ‘plain,’and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.” However, even “[i]f all three conditions are met,” this Court will exercise its discretion to reverse the Superior Court “only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Phipps, 54 V.I. at 546 (quoting Francis v. People, 52 V.I. 381, 390-91 (V.I. 2009)).

2012Id. (quoting Nanton v. People, 52 V.I. 466, 475 (V.I. 2009)).

2012Id.

2017See Williams v. People, 59 V.I. 1043 , 1047 n.4 (VI. 2013) (recognizing that “the harmless error standard is functionally equivalent to the third prong of the plain error test”); Fahie v. People, 59 V.I. 505 , 516 n.5 (V.I. 2013) (explaining that “courts have held that the third part of plain error review involves the same inquiry as harmless error analysis”) (collecting cases); cf. Rawlins v. People, 58 V.I. 261 , 269 n.3 (VI. 2013) (clarifying that, although both standards require similar inquiry, the government has the burden of proof under the harmless error standard, while the defendant h

2013While Tyson failed to lodge a contemporaneous objection during the Superior Court proceedings or to raise this issue in his appellate brief, “we have already held that a complete failure by the Superior Court to apply section 104 will typically satisfy all four prongs of the plain error standard of review.” Rawlins v. People, 58 V.I. 261, 276 (V.I. 2013) (citing Williams, 56 V.I. at 832-34 ).

2013The plain error standard states that an appellate court may correct an error not raised at trial if it finds: 1) an error, 2) that is plain, 3) that affects substantial rights, and 4) if, in its discretion it finds that “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716, 721 (V.I. 2012) (citing United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005)).

2013The plain error standard states that an appellate court may correct an error not raised at trial if it finds: 1) an error, 2) that is plain, 3) that affects substantial rights, and 4) if, in its discretion it finds that “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716, 721 (V.I. 2012) (quoting United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005)).

2009Supreme LEXIS 16, *9 (quoting Sanchez v. Gov’t, 34 V.I. 105 , 921 F. Supp. 297, 300 (D.V.I.

2009“Plain error is defined as those errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S. Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.

2017Webster v. People, 60 V.I. 666, 672 (V.I. 2014); Connor, 59 V.I. at 297 (citing Phipps v. People, 54 V.I. 543, 546 (V.I. 2011)).

2014The plain error standard is met where there is “an error, that was plain, that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Webster v. People, 60 V.I. 666, 672 (V.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2013See, e.g., Williams v. People, 56 V.I. 821, 827 (V.I. 2012); People v. Murrell, 56 V.I. 796, 802 (V.I. 2012).

2012See People v. Murrell, 56 V.I. 796, 802 (V.I. 2012) (citing Rule 4(h) as authority for the plain error standard).

2012“Stated most simply, ‘where there was forfeiture, we apply a plain error analysis; where there was waiver, we do not.’ ” Id. at 290-91 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 807 (1st Cir. 1996)).

2010“Stated most simply, ‘where there was forfeiture, we apply a plain error analysis; where there was waiver, we do not.’ ” Id. at 290-91 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 807 (1st Cir. 1996)).

2014For this Court to reverse a judgment of the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2014For this Court to reverse a judgment of the Superior Court under the plain error standard of review, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2012“Stated most simply, ‘where there was forfeiture, we apply a plain error analysis; where there was waiver, we do not.’ ” Id. at 290-91 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 807 (1st Cir. 1996)).

2010“Stated most simply, ‘where there was forfeiture, we apply a plain error analysis; where there was waiver, we do not.’ ” Id. at 290-91 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 807 (1st Cir. 1996)).

2025Thus, because these two phrases are interchangeable in this context, the Supreme Court’s analysis of the meaning and effect of the previous version of Rule 52(b) is equally applicable to the current, restyled version of the rule, and therefore equally applicable to the identical Virgin Islands rule as well '3 Indeed, as originally stated in United States v. Atkinson—the seminal decision in which the Supreme Court first articulated the plain error doctrine, and from which the language of Rule 52(b) is derived—the plain error doctrine was described as providing an exception to the general rule t

2009“Plain error is defined as those errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S. Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.

2013See Brown v. People, 55 V.I. 496, 506-07 (V.I. 2011) (citing Dunlop v. People, S. Ct. Crim.

2012Id.

2009P. 52. 5 “Plain error is defined as those errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Phillips, 2009 V.I.

2009“Plain error is defined as those errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Phillips, 2009 V.I.

2025See Webster, 60 V.I. at 677 (“[BJasing a conviction on an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and an ‘error.’”) (quoting United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 951 (Sth Cir. 1994)); see also United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 916 (Sth Cir. 2006) (“A conviction based upon an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and ‘error.’’’) Crutchfield v. State, 627 P.2d 196, 199 (Alaska 1980) (“If the regulation is unconstitutional, [the defendant’s] conviction, to the extent that it is based on the regulation, constitutes plain error.”) And, because Wilkinson failed to raise this error before th

2025United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585 (1968).

2025See Webster, 60 V.I. at 677 (“[BJasing a conviction on an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and an ‘error.’”) (quoting United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 951 (Sth Cir. 1994)); see also United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 916 (Sth Cir. 2006) (“A conviction based upon an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and ‘error.’’’) Crutchfield v. State, 627 P.2d 196, 199 (Alaska 1980) (“If the regulation is unconstitutional, [the defendant’s] conviction, to the extent that it is based on the regulation, constitutes plain error.”) And, because Wilkinson failed to raise this error before th

2025See Webster, 60 V.I. at 677 (“[BJasing a conviction on an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and an ‘error.’”) (quoting United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 951 (Sth Cir. 1994)); see also United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 916 (Sth Cir. 2006) (“A conviction based upon an unconstitutional statute is both ‘plain’ and ‘error.’’’) Crutchfield v. State, 627 P.2d 196, 199 (Alaska 1980) (“If the regulation is unconstitutional, [the defendant’s] conviction, to the extent that it is based on the regulation, constitutes plain error.”) And, because Wilkinson failed to raise this error before th

2017We review this claim only for plain error, however, because Miller forfeited her First Amendment and Due Process Clause arguments by failing to object to the court’s religious references at sentencing. 3 See Connor v. People, 59 V.I. 286 , 298 n.11 (V.I. 2013) (“Where a statute is violated — indeed, even where the Constitution itself is violated — an appellant must ordinarily establish each factor of the plain error test if he failed to raise his objection below.”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 793 , 187 L.

2017Webster v. People, 60 V.I. 666, 672 (V.I. 2014); Connor, 59 V.I. at 297 (citing Phipps v. People, 54 V.I. 543, 546 (V.I. 2011)).