Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-24-2005
Govt of VI v. Diaz
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4773
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Govt of VI v. Diaz" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1140.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1140
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-4773
___________
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
WILFREDO DIAZ,
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. No. 03-cr-00007)
District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch
District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore
Territorial Judge: Ive A. Swan
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 19, 2005
Before: NYGAARD, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 24, 2005)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Wilfredo Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal
charges against him. We will affirm.
While Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility in St.
Croix, Virgin Islands, prison officials charged him with violating prison regulations by
repeatedly stabbing another inmate with a knife. The Bureau of Corrections Disciplinary
Committee held a hearing after which it found Diaz guilty of violating prison regulations and
placed him in administrative segregation for fifty-five days. For the stabbing, the Government
then charged Diaz with assault in the third degree and with possession of a dangerous weapon.
Diaz filed a motion to dismiss, which the Territorial Court denied. He went to trial and was
found guilty on both counts.
Diaz argues that because he had already been tried and sanctioned by prison
officials for the stabbing, the Government’s attempt to prosecute him violated the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United
States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3d Cir. 1993). In Newby, we held that “a prison disciplinary
hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes. Disciplinary sanctions
imposed by prison authorities for infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent
criminal prosecution.” Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Other Courts of Appeal to address the
issue are in agreement. See United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir. 1996); United
States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d
2
802, 807 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989); Kerns v.
Paratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1982). Thus, Diaz’s argument fails as a matter of law.
Accordingly, we affirm the Territorial Court’s order denying the motion to
dismiss.