S. Ct. Crim. No. 2012-0122

After an evidentiary proceeding on remand from this Court, the defendant's challenges to the Superior Court's finding that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was not violated in the prior trial on robbery and grand larceny charges is affirmed. The evidence presented does not illustrate that the public, namely defendant's family, was unable to insure by their presence that he was treated fairly. Testimony showed that the public was able to witness the examinations of each witness by both parties. Although defendant's friends and family were not allowed to enter the courtroom for approximately 15-20 minutes when the courtroom was full, his rights were not violated. The Superior Court's denial of a hearing on the defendant's separate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not inconsistent with this Court's decision in Codrington v. People, 57 V.I. 176 (V.I. 2012), which is limited to claims presented pre-trial and hence is simply inapplicable to this case where the claims were first raised months after the trial. Nor does defendant identify any specific omissions or acts of his counsel that would suggest performance below the professionally acceptable level. The purported lack of adequate compensation is insufficient on the facts and circumstances of this case to support a claim of ineffective assistance, and therefore cannot be the basis of a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.