IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS  
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN  
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
)  
)  
Plaintiff, 
)  
vs. 
)  
)  
TIFFANNE C. SUTTON, 
)  
)  
Defendant. 
)  
------------------------------~)) 
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
) 
) 
Plaintiff, 
) 
) 
vs. 
) 
) 
TIFFANNE C. SUTTON, ERROL S. PETERSON, ) 
and COLETTE HACKETT-BROWNE, 
) 
)  
Defendants. 
)  
)  
)  
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
)  
)  
Plaintiff, 
)  
)  
vs. 
)  
)  
TIFFANNE C. SUTTON, KIMBERLY O. 
)  
SUTTON, THIERRY PHILIPI SERRANT 
)  
and ROBERT M. LATTIMORE, JR., 
)  
)  
Defendants. 
)  
------------------------------~) 
CHRISTINE D. THOMAS, ESQ. 
DENISE GEORGE-COUNTS, ESQ. 
Assistant Attorney General 
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice 
34-38 Kronprindsens Gade 
GERS Bldg., 2nd Floor 
St. Thomas, VI 00802 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F579 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F580 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F581 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F582 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F577 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F608 
CASE O. ST-IO-CR-F525 
CASE NO. ST-IO-CR-F653 
. ; 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
LEONARD B. FRANCIS, JR., ESQ. 
Law Office of Leonard B. Francis 
P.O. Box 8838 
St. Thomas, VI 00801 
Attorney for Defendant Tiffanne C. Sutton 
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffallne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. Lattimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-F580, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-I O-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion 
ROBERT A. LEYCOCK, ESQ. 
KARIN A. BENTZ, ESQ. 
Territorial Public Defender 
Law Offices of Karin A. Bentz, P.C. 
Office of the Territorial Public Defender 
18 Dronningens Gade, Suite 8 
P.O. Box 6040 
St. Thomas, VI 00802 
St. Thomas, VI 00804 
Attorney for Defendant 
Attorney for Defendant Errol S. Peterson 
Colette Hackett-Browne 
SAMUEL L. JOSEPH, ESQ. 
DAVID J. CATTlE, ESQ. 
Territorial Public Defender 
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smock & Stewart 
Office of the Territorial Public Defender 
1336 Beltjen Road, Suite 201 
P.O. Box 6040  
St. Thomas, VI 00802 
St. Thomas, VI 00804  
Attorney for Defendant 
Attorney for Defendant Kimberly O. Sutton 
Robert M. Lattimore, Jr. 
CHRISTIAN, ADAM G., Judge 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
(Filed: March 30, 2011) 
I. 
Summary. 
Before the Court is the "Motion to Consolidate and in the Alternate to Dismiss" filed by 
Defendant Tiffanne C. Sutton. l By said motion, Tiffanne C. Sutton seeks to consolidate all of 
the above-captioned criminal actions pursuant to FED. R. CRlM. P. 8(b) because all of the cases 
arise from the same acts and transaction. Only the People of the Virgin Islands (the "People") 
filed an opposition to the motion. Because all of the claims against all Defendants grow out of 
the same circumstances and no prejudice has been asserted by any Defendant, the motion will be 
granted and a j oint trial of these cases ordered. 
II. 
Background. 
These cases grow out of alleged misuse of taxpayers' names and other personal 
information by former employees of the Virgin Islands Bureau ofInternal Revenue ("VIBIR") in 
order to obtain and negotiate illegitimate tax refund checks. It also is alleged that persons 
outside of VIBIR assisted the employees in these endeavors. A review of the charges against all 
Defendants reveals substantial similarities. 
Specifically, in Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-580, 581 and 582, Defendants Colette Hackett 
Browne, Errol R. Peterson, and Tiffanne C. Sutton are charged with a conspiracy under the 
Despite the title of the motion, there was no discussion in the body of the document regarding the standard 
for a pretrial dismissal of criminal charges, nor was a request for dismissal made. The motion focused solely on the 
issue of joinder. Therefore, this opinion does not address dismissal of criminal actions. 
2  
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffanne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. L attimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-FS80, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-IO-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion  
Virgin Islands Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO,,).2 Ms. Browne 
also is charged with two substantive CICO counts, two counts of embezzlement or falsification 
of public accounts/ eight counts of offenses by officers and employees of the Virgin Islands,4 
and one count of fraud and false statements.s Mr. Petersen, in addition to the conspiracy count, 
is charged with two CICO counts, two counts of aiding and abetting6 embezzlement or 
falsification of public accounts, eight counts of aiding and abetting offenses by officers and 
employees of the Virgin Islands, and one count of aiding and abetting fraud and false statements. 
Tiffanne C. Sutton is further charged with two CICO counts, two counts of aiding and abetting 
embezzlement or falsification of public accounts, three counts of aiding and abetting offenses by 
officers and employees of the Virgin Islands, and one count of aiding and abetting fraud and 
false statements. 
In Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-525, 577, 608, and 653, Tiffanne C. Sutton, Kimberly O. Sutton, 
Thierry Philipi Serrant/ and Robert Lattimore, Jr. are charged with participation in a CICO 
conspiracy. 
Tiffanne C. Sutton also faces two counts of violating CICO, one count of 
embezzlement or falsification of public accounts, one count of offenses by officers and 
employees of the Virgin Islands, five counts of embezzlement by clerks, agents, and employees,8 
one count of obtaining money by false pretenses,9 and one count of identity theft. 10 Kimberly O. 
Sutton, in addition to the conspiracy count, is charged with two counts of aiding and abetting 
CICO violations, one count of aiding and abetting offenses by officers and employees of the 
Virgin Islands, five counts of aiding and abetting embezzlement by clerks, agents, and 
employees, one count of aiding and abetting the obtaining of money by false pretenses, and one 
count of aiding and abetting identity theft. Finally, in Case No. ST-IO-CR-579, Tiffanne C. 
Sutton is charged with single counts of offenses by officers and employees of the Virgin Islands, 
fraud and false statements, identity theft, and obtaining of money by false pretenses. 
The People oppose the motion on the grounds that consolidation would be "impractical 
and serve no legitimate purpose." The People also assert that the facts at trial would be different 
in the various cases. The People additionally claim that joining these cases would not serve the 
interests of judicial economy. 
By Orders dated January 27 and February 2, 2011, this Court 
gave all Defendants twenty (20) days to submit their responses to said motion. However, no 
responses were submitted by those parties, and, therefore, any potential objections to the instant 
2 
v.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14, §§ 600-614. 
14 V.I.e. § 1662. 
33 V.I.e. § 1533. 
33 V.I.e. § 1525. 
6 
14 V.I.e. § 11. 
7 
Although the People filed an Information against Mr. Serrant on September 15,2010, and the Court issued 
a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum on October 15, 201 0, he has not yet been brought before the Court to be 
advised of his rights and arraigned. Therefore, Mr. Serrant will be given an opportunity to be heard on this matter, if 
he so desires, once he is brought before the Court. 
8 
14V.I.e. § 1093. 
9 
14 V.I.e. § 834. 
10 
14 V.I.e. § 2202. 
3  
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffanne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. Lattimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-F580, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-IO-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion  
motion are deemed waived. II 
Upon consideration of the appropriate factors, the Court will 
grant Tiffanne C. Sutton's motion and order a joint trial of these matters. 
III. 
Analysis. 
Although both Tiffanne C. Sutton and the People primarily discuss FED. R. CRIM. P. 8(b) 
in their submissions, this is not the rule which principally governs the present motion. Federal 
Rule 8(b) establishes the bases on which multiple defendants may properly be charged in the 
same indictment or information. What Tiffanne C. Sutton seeks in her motion is a consolidation 
or joint trial of these several cases, which were commenced in three separate informations, and 
SUPER. CT. R. 12912 governs this motion. However, the Court reads these rules together as they 
both promote judicial efficiency by sanctioning joint criminal trials whenever appropriate. 
Conservation of judicial resources is favored under the rules of this Court. 13 Construing these 
rules together is consistent with the practice of federal courts considering federal Rules 8(b) and 
13 14 together when faced with similar motions. As noted by the United States Supreme Court, 
"J oint trials 'playa vital role in the criminal justice system. ", 15 The decision of whether to order 
a joint trial of separate criminal cases is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. 16 
In this case, the Court agrees with the movant that the three Informations filed against all 
Defendants "arose out of the same facts and circumstances .... " All cases involve allegations that 
VIBIR employees and other persons participated in a process to obtain income tax refund checks 
to which they were not entitled. 
In this process, false tax returns were submitted to and 
processed by the VIBIR, income tax refund checks were improperly issued, and these checks 
were negotiated. 
Although some of the charges in the Informations cover different time frames, the Court 
notes the generally close temporal proximity of the varying allegations. In Case Nos. ST-10-CR­
580, 581, and 582, the Information covers activities alleged to have occurred from January 1, 
2006 through December 31, 2007. In Case Nos. ST-10-CR-525, 577, 608, and 653, the criminal 
activities are alleged to have taken place between January 1, 2008, the day immediately 
following the last date of the alleged illegal activities in Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-580, 581 and 582, 
and March 30, 2010. 
In Case No. ST-IO-CR-579, the alleged misconduct is said to have 
II 
SUPER. CT. R. 7, 128(a); FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(e). 
12 
"A judge may order that two or more complaints be tried together if the offenses arose out of the same facts 
and circumstances, regardless of the number of defendants. In all other cases, with the consent of the persons 
charged, ajudge, for convenience, may consolidate complaints for trial." 
13 
SUPER. CT. R.I. 
. 
14 
FED. R. CRlM. P. 13 provides "The court may order that separate cases be tried together as though brought 
in a single indictment or information if all offenses and all defendants could have been joined in a single indictment 
or information." Although not identical to local rule 129, the Court finds that the rules have similar requirements 
and purposes. 
15 
Zajiro v. United States. 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993) (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209 
(1987)). 
16 
E.g. , United Slates v. Vazquez-Barrena, No. l:07-CR-70 2007 WL 5312629 * I (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 28, 2007) 
(considering consolidation of separate indictments under FED. R. CR[M. P. 13). 
4 
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffanne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. Lattimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-F580, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-IO-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion  
occurred between February 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008, which overlaps with the time frame 
alleged in Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-525, 577, 608, and 653. In addition to the temporal overlaps of 
the various cases, as described above there are similarities in the types of charges alleged against 
all Defendants. Given the overlapping time frames and similarity of the alleged activities of all 
Defendants, and the fact that each of them are alleged to have participated in one of the two 
alleged conspiracies, all of the violations and Defendants could have been charged in one 
Information under FED. R. CRIM. P. 8(b). Under these circumstances, ordering a joint trial is 
appropriate. 
While it is in the interest of the public to conduct joint trials in criminal cases when 
authorized by the rules of procedure, the Court must also take into account any prejudice which 
may inure to any co-Defendants. 17 As noted above, Defendants did not respond to the motion. 
Therefore, no prejudice to any Defendant is present in the record. Further, the Court notes that, 
given the number of Defendants and charges, handling the several matters together will avoid the 
potential for multiplicitous or duplicitous charges being prosecuted against the various 
Defendants. 18 
The People's contention that the proposed joint trial of these cases would serve no 
legitimate purpose is contrary to both the well-established afore-cited precedent that joint trials 
are in the public interest and the policy of the Rules of the Superior Court. Moreover, the 
People's reliance on United States v. Eufrasio 19 is misplaced, as that case supports the conclusion 
that a joint trial of these cases is apt. Therein, the Third Circuit declared, 
Rule 8(b) provides substantial leeway to prosecutors who would join racketeering 
defendants in a single trial. The rule permits joinder of defendants charged with 
participating in the same racketeering enterprise or conspiracy, even when 
different defendants are charged with different acts, so long as indictments 
indicate all the acts charged against each joined defendant (even separately 
charged substantive counts) are charged as racketeering predicates or as acts 
undertaken in furtherance of, or in association with, a commonly charged RICO 
enterprise or conspiracy.20 
Although the People brought the CICO conspiracy charges separately in these cases, it is 
apparent that the plans alleged in the CICO conspiracies are similar, if not the same. Count One 
of the Information in Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-525, 577, 608, and 653 provides, in pertinent part: 
While employed by, or associated with, any enterprise, the defendants conducted 
and participated in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a 
pattern of criminal activity to wit: Obtaining Money by False Pretense Tit. 14 
17 
See, United States v. Salehi, 187 F. App 'x 157, 163-164 (3rd Cir. 2006).  
18 
See, People v. Miller, No. ST-08-CR-427, Mem. Op. (V.L Super. Ct. Nov. 12,2010) (Dunston, 1.) (noting  
that certain charges involving CICO and related charges were mUltipl icitous and violated rights of defendants).  
19 
935 F.2d 553 (3rd Cir. 1991).  
20 
935 F.2d at 567.  
5  
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffanne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. Lattimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-F580, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-IO-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion  
Y.I.e. 834(b), in that the defendants, acting in concert with each other knowingly 
and designedly engaged in a fraudulent scheme defrauding the Government of the 
Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue (IRB) of money in excess of $100.00, 
by fraudulently intercepting, obtaining and negotiating or cashing tax refund 
checks issued by the IRB made payable to Virgin Islands taxpayers and obtaining 
the proceeds, in the names of others in violation of Tit. 14 V .I.e. § 605 (d), 
604(e)(16). 
And, Count One of the Information in Case Nos. ST-10-CR-580, 581 and 582 provides, in 
pertinent part: 
While employed by, or associated with, any enterprise, the Defendants conducted 
and participated in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a 
pattern of criminal activity to wit: Obtaining Money by False Pretense, in that the 
Defendants, acting in concert with each other knowingly and designedly engaged 
in a fraudulent scheme defrauding the Government of the Virgin Islands Bureau 
of Internal Revenue of money in excess of $100.00, by fraudulently generating 
several tax refunds through the filing of several false and fraudulent tax returns in 
the names of others in violation of Tit. 14 V.I.c. § 605 (d), 604(e)(16). 
(Emphasis in original). 
The language of the conspiracy charges indicates a substantial similatity in their nature. 
Moreover, the substantive charges are based on alleged acts of some Defendants by which the 
aforesaid CICO conspiracies were executed. Under United States v. Eu/rasia, therefore, these 
cases should be joined and not maintained separately. 
The People's concern that there are different substantive charges against the various 
defendants does not change this analysis as " ... Rule 8(b), Fed.RCrim.P., does not require that 
each defendant be named in each count, so long as the offenses are related.,,21 Finally, case law 
indicates that, in the absence of prejudice, it is not an abuse of discretion to conduct a joint trial 
involving multiple conspiracies when, as here, there is a corrunon scheme used to achieve the 
goals of the conspiracies.22 Taking into account all relevant factors, the Court concludes that a 
joint trial of these cases is the best course of action. 
IV. 
Conclusion. 
The allegations against Defendants in the various charges brought by the People of the 
Virgin Islands all revolve around plans and actions to achieve the same improper goal ­
Defendants obtaining money by manipulating the income tax system. In light of the salutary 
principle of conserving judicial resources, and the lack of any articulated prejudice to any of the 
21 
United States v. Gimelstob, 475 F.2d 157, 160 (3rd Cir. 1973).  
22 
United States v. Rittweger, 524 F.3d 17 1, 176-1 78 (2nd Cir. 2008). See also, United States v. Elder, 90  
F.3d 1110, 1118-1120 (6th Cli:. 1996) (no abuse of discretion by the trial court in holding joint trial of 13 defendants  
where all charges were logically related)  
6  
People of the Virgin Islands v. Tiffanne C. Sutton, Errol S. Peterson, Colette Hackett-Browne,  
Kimberly O. Sutton, Thierry Philipi Serrant, Robert M. Lattimore, Jr.  
Case Nos. ST-IO-CR-F579, ST-IO-CR-F580, ST-IO-CR-F581, ST-IO-CR-F582,  
ST-IO-CR-F577, ST-IO-CR-F608, ST-IO-CR-F525, and ST-IO-CR-F653  
Memorandum Opinion  
Defendants, the Motion to Consolidate and in the Alternate to Dismiss filed by Defendant 
Tiffanne C. Sutton will be granted. The Court will issue an order for the joint trial of the above­
captioned matters in conjunction with this opinion. 
Dated: March 30, 2011 
Hon. Ad-am-G. Christian 
Judge of the Superior Court 
of the Virgin Islands 
ATTEST:  
Venetia H. Velazquez, E~.  
Clerk of the Court  
7