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