IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

FILED

July 13, 2021
Sx-2021-MC-00034

TAMARA CHARLES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
HERNAN NAVARRO
Case No. SX-21-MC-034
PETITIONER, | Weir OF HABEAS CORPUS

Cited as: 2021 VISUPER 60U
V.

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS AND VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU
OF CORRECTIONS,

RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Willocks, Presiding Judge
ql! THIS MATTER comes before the court on pre se Hernan Navarro’s (hereinafter “Petitioner’)

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on May 7, 2021. The Petitioner filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
May 27, 2021. For the reasons stated herein the court will GRANT Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus

and the court finds Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing as MOOT.

L FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
q2 The facts are already detailed in Navarro v. United States, and the factual background was
summarized:
q3 “In August 1999, following a jury trial, Navarro was convicted of Burgiary First Degree,

Robbery First Degree, Carjacking, First Degree Murder, Assault First Degree, Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm, and Threatening a Witness. He was sentenced in May 2000 to life without parole on the murder
charge and additional time on the other counts. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2001, United States v. Lopez, 

, 44 V.1. 311 (3d Cir.
2001), and his application for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on March
25, 2002.”

See Navarro v. United States, 

, 

, 

 (2002).
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

SX-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U
Memorandum Opinion

Page 2 of 7

qa In this Habeas Corpus Petition, Petitioner recites a myriad of facts based off the evening of

September 22, 1998. (See Petition p.1}. Petitioner begins by stating that he was present at the advisement
hearing of the three others (hereinafter “Defendants”) who were charged in the series of crimes that took
place on the evening of September 22, 1998. (See Petition p. 2). Petitioner alleges that he was brought to
the police station for questioning after an incident that took place at the courthouse. (See Petition p. 2).
Petitioner contends he was angry and does not deny that he had gotten into an argument with witnesses
who had made accusations against his friends. (See Petition p. 2). After the incident, he was brought to the
police station for questioning, and, eventually, he was questioned about his whereabouts on the
September 22, 1998 evening. (See Petition p.2). Petitioner further alleges that while he was being
questioned by the officer, they found a gun in his mother’s home, however, according to Petitioner, this

was eventually excluded from evidence. (See Petition p.3).

gS Petitioner alleges he was charged after a partial print of his left thumb was discovered on the
blade of a knife found outside one of the three residential homes at #66 Enfield Green, (See Petition p.4).
Petitioner alleges that he was eventually charged with all of the same offenses as the Defendants. (See
Petition p.4). However, Petitioner alleges that detectives concluded the knife did not come out of any of
the three homes or personal property of the victims or occupants of the home. (See Petition p.4).
Petitioner further alleges that he was charged with these crimes without evidence that could prove he was
responsible for placing the knife where it was allegedly found by detectives. (See Petition p.4). Moreover,
Petitioner claims that the Government failed to prove the dangerous weapons elements sufficient to
sustain his conviction for the following counts: first degree burglary, first degree robbery, first degree
murder, first degree assault, mayhem and use of a firearm in relation to the commission of carjacking

convictions. (See Petition p. 5).
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

SX-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U
Memorandum Opinion

Page 3 of 7

I. LEGAL STANDARD

qo Virgin Islands Habeas Corpus Rule 2 states that “any person who believes he or she is unlawfully
imprisoned or detained in custody, confined under unlawful conditions, or otherwise unlawfully
restrained of his or her liberty, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to seek review of the legality

of that imprisonment or detention.”

T? In reviewing a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the court must “grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus
without delay” if the petition states a prima facie case for relief—alleging facts, that if true, entitle the
petitioner to relief—and the petition is not procedurally barred, which may occur when a petitioner
attempts to re-litigate an issue that was already raised in this court on direct appeal.' A petitioner makes a
prima facie case by stating "specific factual allegations which require habeas relief rather than mere
conclusions of speculations."” Specifically, a petition must satisfy the requirements of 5 V.LC. § 1302,

which provides:

qs “Tt shall specify that the person in whose behaif the writ is applied for is imprisoned or restrained
of his liberty and the officer or person by whom, and the place where, he is so confined or restrained,
naming all the parties, if they are known, or describing them, if they are not known; (2) If the
imprisonment is alleged to be illegal, the petition shall state in what the alleged illegality consists; (3) The
petition shall be verified by the oath of the party making the application.”’ See Dowdye v. Testamark,

 (Super. Ct. 2021). Significantly, granting the writ of habeas corpus is an intermediate

? Ledesma v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 72 V.1. 797 (V.1. Court 2019) (citing Blyden v. Gov't of the V.L, 64
V.L 367, 376-77 (V.I. 2016)).

* Dowdye v. Testamark, 202) V.1. LEXIS 2! (Super. Ct. 2021) (citing Weodrup v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, Super.
Ct. Civ. No. ST-16-MC-47, 

, at * 4 (V.L Super. Ct. June 20, 2018) (quoting V.I. H.C.R.
advisory committee's note) (unpublished).

75 VLC. $1302.
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

SX-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U
Memorandum Opinion

Page 4 of 7

step in the statutory procedure and “only requires the Government to produce the petitioner for a

hearing.”
Hil. DISCUSSION

q9 The court finds that Petitioner has sufficiently satisfied the requirements of 5 V.LC. § 1302 by
naming the Keen Mountain Correctional Center as his place of detention, by further alleging that his

detention was illegal for Counts f-17 and by signing his Petition under Oath.

10 Here, Petitioner does not claim that he had ineffective counsel, nor does he claim there is newly
discovered evidence that would prove his innocence. See Fahie v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 73
VL. 443 (Super. Ct. 2020) (holding that a “writ of habeas corpus may be granted based off of newly
discovered evidence, but the standard is extremely high and the evidence Fahie offers does not meet that
bar”). Here, the court does not find that what Petitioner presents to the court can even be construed as
newly discovered evidence. Rather, what Petitioner claims is that the prosecution did not prove each
element of the crimes for which he was charged, therefore, Petitioner raises a sufficiency of the evidence
argument, However, the court cannot analyze an argument that was already raised on appeal because that
would constitute an argument that is procedurally barred having already been argued in front of a
competent court. See Rodriguez v. Bureau of Corrections, 70 V1. 924 (V.L. 2019) (holding that “the
determination as to whether a previously raised claim is procedurally barred in a habeas corpus
proceeding because it was duly considered and decided by a competent court is dependent on the nature

of the claim”).

4 Id. (citing Rivera-Moreno y. Gov't of the V.L., 61 VL. 279, 311 (V.L 2014).
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin Istands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

SX-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U
Memorandum Opinion

Page 5 of 7

Lt The argument Petitioner raises concerning the knife was that it did not come out of any of the
homes that were part of the robbery on the evening of September 22, 1996. However, Petitioner raised a
very similar argument in Navarro v. United States; where Petitioner’s argument was analyzed and
rejected, Navarro v. United States, 2018 U.S. District Court LEXIS 125982 (V.L. District Court 2018).
This argument was in the context of an ineffective assistance counsel claim that Petitioner argued during
an equitable tolling request to establish his actual innocence. /d. at 29. The District Court held that
“Navarro has provided only his raw speculation that if his counsel had hired a fingerprint expert, and if—
contrary to the testimony of the Government's expert—the expert had found that it was not his fingerprint
on the knife, and if his co-Defendant had come forward with information consistent with his affidavit, the
results of his trial would have been different.” /d. The District Court concluded that this was not based on

actual evidence and instead a string of hypotheticals, and even if the Court were to reach the issue, it

would reject it. Jd. at 33.

qi2 In United States v. Lopez, the Defendants raised a variety of issues. The Court held Pinkerton
applies in the U.S. Virgin Islands and that the Court did not err in instructing the jury that they could
convict the Defendants under the Pinkerton Doctrine. United States v. Lopez, 

 (3d. Cir.
2001). However, here, Petitioner's argument rests on his allegation that there was not any biological,
scientific, or eyewitness evidence that inculpated him in the crimes. (See Petition p. 4). In addition,
Petitioner claims there was no evidence of other prints found on, or inside any of the homes attacked. (See

Petition p.4).

q13 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held in Rodriguez that the Petitioner in that case was entitled as
a matter of law to raise his sufficiency of the evidence claim in a habeas proceeding. Rodriguez v. Bureau
of Corrections, 70 V1. 924 (VI. 2019). Here, the court realizes that for this Petition to be granted,
Petitioner’s argument must not be a repackaged argument that was already ruled on. The one important

detail this court believes stands out is that Petitioner's argument is not in the context of an ineffective
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

SX-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U
Memorandum Opinion

Page 6 of 7

counsel claim like it was presented to the District Court. What the Petitioner presents here, and that he is
entitled to, is a sufficiency of the evidence claim with regards to the thumb print that was found on the
knife.* Of course, the court ts erring on the side of granting this Petition because the court is aware that it
has long been held that there is a fundamental importance of a prisoner's right to habeas corpus
proceedings. fd. The court finds Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Petition to be a sufficiency of the evidence
argument, that the District Court and the Third Circuit ruled on previous arguments but that it is unclear if
this argument was actually raised, and therefore, Petitioner entitled to a writ based off of this prima facie
case that he presents to the court. All a Petitioner is required to do in order to obtain a writ under Virgin
Islands law: “state facts [in the petition] that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief.” Rivera-Moreno v.
Gov't of the V.L., 61 V.E. 279, 292 (V.I. 2014), “Granting the writ of habeas corpus...constitutes an
intermediate step in the statutory procedure”—it does not address the underlying merits of the petition’s
allegations, nor does it entitle the petitioner to the ultimate relief sought in the petition.” /d. at 311. Here,
Petitioner's habeas petition raises a purely legal question, including challenges to sufficiency of the
evidence because Petitioner claims that he was charged without evidence proving that he placed the knife
where it was found by the detectives, that there was not another print that could compliment the partial
print on the knife and that the knife did not come out of the homes or personal property of the victims.
(See Habeas Petition p. 4). Petitioner claims there was no evidence presented on the record to prove that

he was present at the location where the crimes occurred. The court finds that these allegations, if true, a

prima facie case for relief.

qi3 Issuing the writ and serving it on the Government respondents simply requires the Government to
file a return responding to the petition and to produce the petitioner in court for a hearing on the merits of

his allegations. /d. at 312. Generally, courts reviewing a habeas petition hold an evidentiary hearing to

° See Blyden v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 64 V.1. 367 (V.1. 2016) (rejecting the Superior Court's blanket holding
that a petitioner cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence through a habeas petition).
Navarro v. Government of the Virgin fslands and Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections
§X-21-MC-034 2021 VISUPER 60U

Memorandum Opinion

Page 7 of 7

hear such proof as may be offered against the petitioner’s imprisonment or detention at which time the
petitioner may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and present and facts showing that the detention
was unlawful. See V.E Hab. Corp. R. 2(g)(1), (4) (citing Laudat v. Testamark, 71 V.L 237 (Super. Ct.
2019)). In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing that the court finds MOOT due
to the fact the rules allow an evidentiary hearing once the writ is granted, therefore, the court does not

need to address Petitioner's arguments here. Thus, the court will grant the writ and hold an evidentiary

hearing where Respondents file a return and address the merits of Petitioner’s allegations.
Iv. CONCLUSION

ql4 Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus has set forth a prima facie case for relief. Therefore, the
writ will be issued, and the matter set for an evidentiary hearing where Respondents can address

Petitioner’s claims on the merits. An Order consistent with this Opinion will follow.
It is hereby:
ORDERED the Writ of Habeas Corpus be GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED this matter be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on oe of RangnoA pOO2\,
ok AL eKMD AN , Ure Boom.

ORDERED the Respondents be personally served in this matter.

DONE and so ORDERED this _ 8" day of

, 2021.
Te?
ATTEST: LA AMY
Tamara Charles HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS

Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court