S. Ct. Crim. No. 2012-0002

In an appeal by a defendant who pled guilty to a charge for simple possession of a controlled substance as a first offender, but objected to the Superior Court judge's invocation of 20 V.I.C. § 378(a) to suspend his driver's license for two years, the Superior Court clearly erred when it applied that provision. As determined in Rohn v. People, S. Ct. Crim. No. 2011-0087 (V.I. Nov. 27, 2012), based on the plain meaning of the applicable statutes, the Legislature did not intend for 20 V.I.C. § 378(a) to apply to defendants who receive probationary treatment pursuant to 19 V.I.C. § 607(b)(1). Although the Superior Court did not have the benefit of the Rohn decision to guide it in sentencing this defendant, the resulting sentence in nevertheless illegal and must be corrected. Accordingly, that portion of the January 27, 2012 Judgment and Sentence that revokes the defendant's driving privileges for two years is reversed.