Domingo Richards Jr was sentenced to serve nine months in prison after pleading guilty to handling stolen goods. Photo: VINO

The wedding bands that were allegedly stolen by a youth and later sold to Mr Domingo Richards Jr for the princely sum of $130. Photo:VINO

The defendant previously pleaded guilty to the charge and attempted to change his plea after stating that he did not fully understand what he was pleading to when the charge was read by Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards.

Richards’ sentence is set to be served from the first date he was remanded.

See previous story posted March 19, 2013:

UPDATE: Accused stolen goods handler reverts to guilty plea

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Accused stolen goods handler, Domingo Richards, 30, of Purcell Estate reverted to his original plea of guilty when he appeared before the Magistrate’s Court on March 15, 2013 after making attempts previously to have the plea changed.

The defendant, who is accused of purchasing two wedding bands and a diamond engagement ring valued at $7,300 from a 16-year-old student for the price of $130, announced in court on February 27, via interpreter, that he previously pleaded guilty because he was confused.

According to Crown Counsel Leslie Ann Faulkner, the Crown is now expected to provide sentencing guidelines to the Court in time for the defendant’s next court appearance.

Attorney at law for the defendant, Jennifer Jarvis-Roberts, indicated that the defence would also be ready to provide mitigation on behalf of the defendant before sentencing is passed down by Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards.

See previous story posted February 27, 2013:

UPDATE: Richards in new attempt for plea change in stolen rings case 

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards was asked once more today, February 27, 2013 to have the plea offered by Domingo Richards Jr be vacated on the grounds that English was not his first language.

According to the defence’s claims, Richards Jr was reportedly befuddled when he was pleaded on February 4, 2013.

The defendant, who is accused of purchasing two wedding bands and a diamond engagement ring valued at $7,300 from a 16-year-old student for the price of $130, announced in court on February 27, via interpreter, that he pleaded guilty because he was confused.

His attorney Jennifer Jarvis-Roberts presented an authority to the court today to assist her client’s plea change request.
Jarvis-Roberts told the court that she submits that her client’s first language is not English while explaining that he thought that the question was whether he had bought the items, something he admitted he did. According to the attorney, the defendant did not accept that he knew or believed the items were stolen which were his instructions to her from the first day. “I was shocked when I heard his plea,” Jarvis-Roberts stated, “maybe he did not understand the English spoken in court.”

The attorney further expressed that the question of whether the difference between guilty and not guilty was understood was not put to her client that day.

As it relates to the authority submitted, Jarvis stated that she was aware that the example case differed from the case before the court, however, she stated that she wished for the outcome of the matter to be considered. The attorney added that she also had a second authority that states that a plea can be changed at any time before the sentence was handed out.

Magistrate Richards remained firm in her stance that there was no discrepancy in the matter as she stated that she went to “pains” to ensure that the defendant understood what the charge was. The Magistrate said that she asked the defendant if he needed an interpreter and he said no. She also said that she asked the defendant if he understood the difference between ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’ and he said that he did.

“I cannot go into your client’s mind, I cannot. I explained to him. The only thing else I could have done was to make the plea for him...I used no jargons, I broke it down for him,” Magistrate Richards said.

“I am really, really annoyed because if I did not go to pains to explain to him I would have accepted his explanation,” she continued, “That is why whenever they all come here I am at pains to explain to all of them, lawyer or not. Maybe now he wants to change his plea.”

Crown Counsel Leslie-Ann Faulkner also appeared to be unhappy with the defence’s claim and told the court that the announced misunderstanding was a ploy to have the plea changed. Faulkner said: “On the point of Richards not understanding the plea and counsel trying to say that English is not his first language and if an interpreter was present he would have understood---Mr Richard spoke to the court and he spoke English quite well. He was asked if he needed an interpreter he said no, he was asked if he understood the difference between guilty and not guilty, he said yes...it is an attempt now through the backdoor to change the plea. Counsel on the last occasion sat right here through all that English and never said well his first language is Spanish so he does not understand. I think it is an attempt to change the plea.”

The Crown Counsel added that the authority submitted related to a different circumstance than what was before the court. She felt that no good evidence was put forward as to why the plea should be changed, only that he is Spanish speaking. “I don’t know if they are making a mockery of the case. He spoke English well the last time, now he is using an interpreter, he is now even speaking to his lawyer and there is no interpreter, unless it is Spanish Mrs Jarvis just spoke. I think the application for the plea change should be disregarded and we proceed to sentencing.”

Jarvis-Roberts later announced that she understands Spanish better than she can speak the language, and also noted that at the time she did not have any authority that specifically dealt with the language issue she raised, but told the court she had no problem providing such.

Magistrate Richards asked the attorney to find something stronger and an authority that took into consideration the various grounds why the defence feels the plea should be vacated.

The matter next comes up for hearing on March 15, 2013.

See previous story posted February 5, 2013:

Man ‘accidentally’ pleads guilty to handling stolen goods

- remanded to prison for sentencing

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Something went wrong when Domingo Richards Jr., 30, of Purcell Estate entered his plea at the Magistrate’s court yesterday, February 4, 2013 after being charged with handling stolen goods.

After he pleaded guilty to the charge, which he later claimed was a mistake, he tried his best to change his plea but was unsuccessful. His attorney, Mrs Jennifer Jarvis-Roberts, made an attempt to have the defendant pleaded again but Magistrate Tamia Richards was reluctant to have this done after having gone through the proper procedures of asking the defendant whether he understood each of the elements of the charges being read to him.

Mrs Jarvis-Roberts did not cite any authorities as requested by the Magistrate to have the defendant re-pleaded therefore a date for mitigation had to be sought after the allegations were read before the court.

According to Senior Crown Counsel Mr Valston Graham, the Virtual Complainant (VC) left home at about 7:45A.M. on November 6, 2012 and her then fiancé left at about 9.AM. He reportedly secured the home by locking the windows and the main entrance. At approximately 10:30A.M. the VC realised she had forgotten something and returned home to retrieve it, parked in the driveway and proceeded to the apartment. On her way to the apartment, she realised that she had forgotten her keys and returned to the vehicle to retrieve the keys as well. It was at this point that she observed a young man jumping out of a bedroom window in the home and running away.

She gave chase and, though she was unsuccessful in catching the perpetrator, she was able to get a good look at the person. Upon entering the apartment, she discovered her gems (wedding bands) missing. A report was made to Police, who later apprehended a 16-year-old boy based on the description that was given. The boy admitted breaking and entering the apartment and stealing the rings. He reportedly told Police that he sold them to the defendant.

The defendant was reportedly approached by Police on November 7, 2012 and allegedly admitted to buying the rings and disclosed that he had paid $130 for them.

The defendant reportedly voluntarily handed over the rings and was charged for the offence of handling stolen goods and placed before the court.

Mr Graham told the court that the only logical conclusion pointed to theft given the cost the defendant had paid the youth for the rings. Nuptials, he added, are supposed to be an honourable occasion. According to Graham, in the process, Richards had criminalised a young man; “Youths [steal] because their urges are met by people like Richards Jr.” Graham told the court.

Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards explained that the value of the rings was listed as $7,300 and the offence was serious and carried up to 5 years imprisonment before the court.

When an application for bail was attempted by the defendant’s attorney, Magistrate Richards remarked that his circumstances had now changed in that he was previously assumed innocent before his guilty plea had been tendered.

“The harbourer is worse than the thief,” expressed Magistrate Richards before reporters were asked to take photographs of images of the rings that were stolen. It was noted that a 16 year old clearly could not have that kind of jewellery.

Graham, who was not finished in denouncing the crime and its alleged perpetrator, said while sentencing was at the discretion of the court, foremost in his mind was that the sentence handed to the accused was one which acted as a deterrent. “We cannot have big hard back men leading youngsters to steal… we need to send a clear message to those criminals that this behaviour is unacceptable,” Graham said.

The accused was remanded to prison until February 27, 2013 but did not go quietly as he was seen on his knees outside pleading with officers in tears, all the while insisting that he was told by an officer that he should plead guilty and only did so because he was following his advice.