Considering an appeal from a conviction of grand larceny which arose from the same act underlying the defendant's robbery conviction, and the sentence imposed for the grand larceny conviction, which was stayed pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 104, the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal because the stay of the execution of a sentence for a secondary crime arising from the same act does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, and the Legislature's intent in enacting 5 V.I.C. § 3673 was to permit stays while cases are on appeal, not to prevent them. In addition, while the trial court erred in drafting the jury verdict forms concerning the grand larceny conviction because no value was assigned to the stolen property upon which that conviction was based, the defendant failed to demonstrate how the jury's failure to declare a value for that property prejudiced him. The January 13, 2013 Judgment and Commitment, which entered the defendant's convictions for robbery in the first degree and grand larceny, is affirmed.