IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
TYDEL JOHN 7
PETITIONER l SX 19 MC 33
v PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
7 CORPUS
WYNNIE TESTAMARK DIRECTOR OF '
THE U S VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF P
CORRECTIONS GOVERNMENT OF THE ‘
VIRGINISLANDS ETAL ,
RESPONDENTS ,
Cite as 2021 VI SUPER U96
Mr Tydel John #14 3826
CCA/Citrus County Detention Facility
#2604 West Woodland Ridge Dr
Lecanto Florida 34461
Attorney Ian S A Clement, Esq ,
Assistant Attorney General
Vixgin Islands Depdltment of Justice
#34 38 Kronprindsens Gade
GERS Complex 2nd Floor
St Thomas USV100802
MEMORANDUM ORDER
‘11 1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petition of Tydel John
(hereinafter Petitioner) seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus Because the
Petitioner has failed to allege facts Which show that he is being
unlawfully restrained in Violation of a constitutional or statutory right
the petition is DENIED
Tydel John v Wmme Testathark VI SUPER U96
Petmon for Habeas Corpus
3X 19 MC 033
PageZ
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
‘1 2 In December 2007 Petitioner was arrested and subsequently
charged in an information with various offenses relating to sexual
conduct involving minors After a tria} conducted from August 28 2012
through September 14 2012 a Jury found the Petitloner guilty of six
counts of First Degree Unlawful Sexual Contact one count of First
Degree Aggravated Rape and one count of Child Abuse Petitioner filed a
motion for Judgment of acquittal which the Court granted in part by
dismissing the other Child Abuse charges but denied with respect to all
other counts The Court sentenced the Petitioner to fifteen (15) years
incarceration on each of the convictions for First Degree Unlawful Sexuai
Contact and fifty (50) years incarceration on the conviction for First
Degree Agglavated Rape One count of Unlawlul Sexual Contact was held
in abeyance to be dismiseed upon completion of the sentence pursuant
to Tit 14 VI C § 104 The sentences for the Unlawful Sexual Contact
were to be served concurrently and were also to run concurrent with the
sentence for First Degree Aggravated Rape The Courts sentence was
memorialized in an order of Judgment and Commitment entered on June
20 2014 Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Virgin
Islands Supreme Court The Supreme Court in a memorandum opinion
issued on September 24 2015 affirmed the conviction and sentence but
2
Tydel John v Wmme Testamark VI S UPER U96
Petition for Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page3
noted that due to a scriveners error the Judgment and Commitment
order misidentified the sentence imposed for count 7 Unlawful Sexual
Contact as the sentence imposed for count 3 Child Abuse and failed to
state that count 8 Child Abuse was dismissed
(II 3 In response to the Supreme Courts finding of error the Superior
Court entered an amended order of Judgment and Commitment on June
6 2016 Nunc Pro Tune June 20 2014
CH 4 Petitioner began serving his sentence at the Golden Grove
Correctional Facility and was later transferred to Citrus County
Detention Facility where he is currently incarcerated Petitioner filed this
petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that the Virgin Islands
Bureau of Corrections ( BOC ) has miscalculated his credits for pretrial
detention and parole eligibility date thereby depriving him of his liberty
to palole eligibility
THE LEGAL STANDARD
‘31 5 Every person unlawfully imprisoned 0r restrained of his liberty
under any pretense whatever may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to
inquire in into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint Tit 5 VI C
§1301
(ll 6 Title 5 §4601 of the Virgin Islands Code provides
Except for a prisoner sentenced to a term of life imprisonment
Without parole every prisoner confined to any pemtentiary Jail 0r
prison for a violation of Virgin Islands Law for a definite term or terms
3
Tydel John v "lllllle Testamark VI SUPER U96
Petition for Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page4
of over 180 days or for the term of his natural life whose record of
conduct shows that he has observed the rules of the institution in
Which he is confined upon recommendation of the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections supported by the recommendation of a
psychiatrist and/or psychologist may be released on parole after
serving one half of such term or terms or after serving fifteen (15)
years of a life sentence or of a sentence of thirty [30) years or more or
after serving minimum sentence required by law whichever is greater
provided however that the Board of Parole in its discretion by at
least a two thirds affirmative vote of all its members upon
recommendation by the Directors of the Bureau of Corrections
supported by the recommendation of a psychiatrist and/or
physiologist is authorized to fix an earlier eligibility date for the
release of a prisoner on parole after serving one third of his term or
terms or after serving ten (10) years of a life sentence or of a sentence
of thirty (30) years or more
(ii 7 The Court must issue an order granting a writ of habeas corpus if
the petitioner has alleged prima facie grounds showing entitlement to
relief and the Claims are not legally barred VI Hab Corp R 2{d)(1) A
petition states a prima facie case if it aileges facts which if true entitie
the petitioner to relief VI Hab Corp R 2(b)(1)
ANALYSIS
A. Section 4601 Does Not Create a Right to Parole
(ll 8 Under Virgin Islands law habeas corpus is available to provide
redress for unlawful confinement or restraint of liberty in Violation of an
individuals Constitutional or statutory rights In order for a writ of
habeas corpus to be granted the Petitioner must show deprivation of a
constitutional or statutory created right and such deprivation imposes
an unlawful restraint on his liberty Here the Petitioner alleges that the
4
Tydel John v Wmme Testamark V] SUPER U96
Petition for Habeas Corpus
5X 19 MC 033
Page5
miscalculation of his parole eligibility date constitutes a deprivation of
his right and places an unlawful restraint on his liberty More
particularly the Petitioner states that the BOC has calculated his parole
eligibility date in a manner which makes him eligible for parole after
having served twenty five (25) years or half of his fifty (50) year sentence
rather than after having served fifteen (15] years of a sentence of thirty
(30) years or more Section 4601 states that a person may be released
on parole after serving half the term of his sentence or after serving 15
years of a life sentence or a sentence of 30 years or more or after serving
the minimum sentence required by law whichevei is greater 5 VI C §
4601 Apparently the BOC interprets the statute in a way that allows the
BOC to choose the greater of all the available options This Court agrees
that to the extent that the BOC applies this formula to calculate the
Petitioners paiole eligibility date it is inaccurate A prisoner sentenced
to a term of mole than 30 yeais of iiiiplisomnent will become eligible for
parole after serving 15 years unless the crime of which he or she is
convicted carfies a greater minimum penalty Martinez 0 COL t of the VI
2016 V I LEXIS 201 at 10 (Super Ct 2016) (finding that the
interpretatlon of the statute which allows the BOC to apply a formula by
which it chooses the greater of the three options for determining parole
5
Tydel John v Wmme Testamurk V] S UPER U96
Petztton for Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page 6
eligibility leads to results that am inconsistent with the intent of the
Legislature‘)
(II 9 The Petitioner has no constitutional or statutory right to parole
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has held that the Virgin Islands
statutory mechanism for parole eligibility does not create a right to be
released on parole There is no constitutional or inherent right of a
convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a
valid sentence Smith v Employees of the Bureau of Corrections 64 VI
383 386 (VI 2016) (citing Greenholtz v Inmates of Nebraska Penal &
Correction Complex 442 US l 7 (1979) The Court further states a right
for parole review or eligibility may be created by statute but the statute
must be mandatory rather than discretionary Id at 387 The Court
concluded that section 4601 is discretionary and not a mandate to the
BOC to determine and g1 ant paxole
‘11 10 It is clear that section 4601 git es the BOC the discretion to
determine whether a prisoner has met the good conduct requirements
and has served the portion of his sentence in a manner that meets parole
eligibility requirements Under Section 4601 parole eligibility is subject to
the recommendation of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
‘ In M(nque thL Court nottd that the f01muld whereby [ht Bureau LhOUSBS the greater 0! halt 01 the
semen“ 15
years 0! a scntenu 0t 30 years or more and the minimum sentence 1Lquired b) {aw would make
the 15 yea:
eligibility proxision USLILSS and lead to absurd results For instance exer) sententc greater than 30 years
would lead
to a calculation beyond the 13 year eligibilit) provision Moreover a prisoner sentenced to life will become
eligible
for parole after 15 years but a prisoner sentenced to a term of greater than ‘40 years for a less egregious
offense will
not be eligible for parole in 15 years The legisiature could not haw: intended these inconsistent results
6
Tydel John v Wmme Testamark VI SUPER U96
Petitionfor Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page 7
supported by the recommendation of a psychiatrist and/or psychologist
The statute does not create a right to parole eiigibility or review but
grants corrections officials the discretion to determine parole eligibility
Therefore Petitioner cannot claim the deprivation of such a right
B The Facts do not Support Unlawful Confinement or Restraint
‘11 11 Petitioner is in the custody of the BOC serving a lawful sentence
pursuant to his conviction for criminal offenses Petitioner seeks habeas
corpus relief on the premise that BOC s miscalculation 0f the time of his
pretrial detention and his parole eligibility date constitutes an unlawful
restraint on his liberty Even if the Court were to require BOC to
calculate the date that Petitioner could be eligible for parole based on the
serving of 15 years with credit for time served in pretrial detention
Petitioner will still not be eligible for a parole hearing until the Director
recommends it 10 be eligible tor parole Petitioner must satisty certain
statutory requirements which include the official determination of his
good conduct and the recommendation of the Director These are the
requirements which trigger Petitioners parole eligibility and not the term
of Petitioners sentence or the amount of time he has served on his
sentence Accordingly Petitioners claim of the denial of a right and an
unlawful restraint on his liberty by an inaccurate parole eligibility
7
Tydel John v Wmme Tatar: k V! SUPER U96
Petition for Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page8
calcuiation does not mature until the statutory requirements have been
satisfied
‘11 12 Incidentally Petitioner does not allege that he has met the
requirements which trigger his parole eligibility so that the 8005
miscalcuiation is the only restriction to his access to a parole hearing
Therefore Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he
has failed to allege facts that would establish that he has a right to a
parole hearing or to be considered for parole Edwards v Mullgrav 2017
VI LEXIS 139 at *9 [Super Ct 2017)
C Petitioner Has Not Served the Time to Trigger Parole Eligibility
CH 13 Quite apart from the fact that Petitioner has failed to satisfy the
statutory prerequisites which would qualify him for parole consideration
Petitioner has not served the necessary time on his sentence Petitioner
began Strung his sentence on 01 about Septembei 14 2012 Up to this
point Petitioner would haxe sorted approximately nine years of the
sentence Petitioner claims four years two months and eight days as
credit for time served in pretrial detention Even with credit for time
served according to Petitioners calculation Petitioner would not have
served the portion of his sentence that would statutorily make him
eligible for parole review2 Since Petitioners eligibility for parole review
The facts essential to an accurate caiculation of the Petitioner s time in pretrial detention are not
at ailable to the Court Therefore the Court makes no finding on the accuracy of Petitioner s calculations
8
Tydel John v Wmme Testainark V] S UPER U96
Petition for Habeas Corpus
3X 19 MC 033
Page9
has not materialized under the provisions of the statute it cannot be
said that Petitioner is confined under an unlawfui restraint Petitioners
claim is that the BOCS calculations are inaccurate If that claim is
correct Petitioner may pursue other means of challenging the
inaccuracy Petitioners claim is not a proper subject for habeas corpus
relief
Conclusion
(It 14 The crux of the Petitioners claim is that the BOC has inaccurately
calculated his time in pretrial detention and has determined that he is
eligible for parole review after serving half his sentence which amounts to
twenty five (25) years Petitioner contends that these inaccuracies
constitute a restraint on his parole eligibility because he is eligible for
parole after serving fifteen (1‘5) years Tit ‘5 VIC § 4601 permits the
BOC t0 detennine paiole eligibility based certain [actors which include
good bchaxior credits and the recommendation of the Director Even if
Petitioners allegations are true there is nothing to indicate that the
Bureau of Corrections is unlawfully restricting the Petitioner of his
liberty through the violation of a constitutional or statutory right
Petitioner failed to state a prima facie case showing an entitlement to
Habeas Corpus relief
Accordingly it is
9
Tydel John v Wmme Testamark VI SUPER U96
Petltum for Habeas Corpus
SX 19 MC 033
Page 10
ORDERED that the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby
DENIED
DONE AND SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September 2021
HONORABLE J0M0 MEADE
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ATT E S T
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court
BY‘c Mr““
C0 t L731: H567”
\ (7202/9001!
10