Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Republic of the Marshall Islands v de Brum (3) [2004] MHSC 3; 2 MILR 254 (14 July 2004)

2 MILR 254

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S. CT. CIVIL NO. 01-03
(High Ct. Crim. No. 2000-074)

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS,
Respondent-Appellee,

-v-

MIRAM DE BRUM,
Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER VACATING JULY 7, 2003 "ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND SETTING ASIDE OPINION FILED ON DECEMBER 27, 2002"

JULY 14, 2004

CADRA, C.J.
GOODWIN, A.J. pro tem¹, and KURREN, A.J. pro tem²

Argued and Submitted May 10, 2004.

SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, vacated the July 7, 2003, Order vacating the Court's December 27, 2002 decision in this case affirming the High Court's conviction of defendant for violating tax laws. The Supreme Court expressly vacated the July 7, 2003 order without prejudice to the defendant seeking appropriate relief before the High Court.

DIGEST:

1. COURT - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction: A single judge of the Supreme Court has no authority or lacks "jurisdiction" to vacate the decision previously entered by the fully comprised three member Supreme Court.

The relevant procedural history can be concisely stated. Defendant-Appellant appealed from a judgment of conviction entered by the High Court. Defendant-Appellant's conviction was affirmed by Supreme Court Opinion filed on December 27, 2002. On July 7, 2003, the then Chief Justice sua sponte entered an "Order Vacating Judgment and Setting Aside Opinion Filed on December 27, 2002." That "Order" raised the issues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain defendant's conviction. The "Order" required briefing on those issues in the event the parties were unable to resolve this matter by stipulation. Unable to resolve the manor by stipulation, the parties submitted briefs on the issues raised by the "Order."

[1] Appellee, Republic of the Marshall Islands, urges that a single judge of the Supreme Court has no authority or lacks "jurisdiction" to vacate the decision previously entered by the fully comprised three member Supreme Court. Defendant-appellant concedes as much.

There being no issue for this Court to decide, Judge Fields's July 7, 2003 Order is hereby VACATED without prejudice to defendant-appellant seeking appropriate relief before the High Court.

David Lowe, for Defendant-Appellant
Resina Senikuraciri, Assistant Attorney General, or Plaintiff-Appellee

__________________

¹Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation of the Cabinet.

²Honorable Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, District of Hawaii, sitting by designation of the Cabinet.