Case Caption: Sidone N. Lake v. Government of the Virgin Islands, et al.Case Number: S. Ct. Civ. No. 2015-0116Date: 10/03/2018Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: Summary: Upon review of a decision of the Superior Court denying a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleged that the petitioner’s guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was not informed of the minimum sentence he faced, that the prosecution breached the plea agreement by opposing his motion for reduction of sentence, and that the trial court wrongfully imposed a sentence in excess of the twenty-year recommendation of the People, the October 6, 2015 order of the Superior Court is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to issue the writ and conduct further proceedings in accordance with the Virgin Islands Habeas Corpus Rules and this Court’s precedent. When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Superior Court must first determine whether it states a prima facie case for relief — that is, whether it states facts that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to discharge or other relief — and whether the stated claims are for any reason procedurally or substantively barred as a matter of law. If it appears that the petition states a prima facie case for relief and that the claims are not all barred as a matter of law, Superior Court must issue a writ of habeas corpus, requiring further proceedings on the petition within the initial 60 days after the filing of the petition, or within 45 days after filing of any informal response requested by the court, as provided in V.I. H.C.R. 2(b)(5). Here the petitioner alleged not only that his trial counsel incorrectly advised him as to the minimum sentence he would face, but also that petitioner was, in fact, unaware of the statutory minimum sentence for second-degree murder at the time he entered his guilty plea. Accepting these factual allegations as true, he has sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie case that he did not enter his plea of guilty with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences of doing so, and consequently, that the trial court’s acceptance of his unknowing and unintelligent guilty plea violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Accordingly this petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the Superior Court erred in denying his petition on this ground. Where a plea agreement requiring the prosecution to recommend a particular sentence or sentencing range to the court is ambiguous as to the scope of the prosecution’s post-sentencing obligations, the prosecution remains bound to make the same recommendation at all proceedings relevant to sentencing, including proceedings on a motion for reduction of sentence. Because the petitioner sufficiently alleged that he entered into the plea agreement with the expectation that the prosecution would recommend a twenty year sentence at all relevant proceedings, and further alleged that the prosecution breached the plea agreement by opposing his motion to reduce the thirty year sentence imposed by the Court, he has successfully made out a prima facie case for habeas relief based upon the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and the Superior Court erred in denying his petition in this respect. Other claims in the petition were not erroneously dismissed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion