Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Noa
Cite as [Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Noa, CR No. 96-10, slip op. (Trial Div. July 10, 2012) (order dismissing motion)]
AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND NOA, Defendant
___________________________________
In the High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division
CR No. 96-10
July 10, 2012
[2] Collateral issues concerning the Corrections Division or the Warden’s acting outside its/his scope of authority or violating constitutional or statutory rights can be addressed by the High Court’s Trial Division in a civil action. A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(7)-(8).
[3] A sentenced defendant cannot tack a civil motion for a special writ concerning his imprisonment onto his criminal case; the defendant must file a civil action or seek redress with the Corrections Division.
Before: KRUSE, Chief Justice; LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge; and FA’AMAUSILI, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Mitzie J. Folau, Assistant
Attorney General
For Defendant, Raymond Noa, pro se
ORDER DISMISSING MOTION
The Defendant Raymond Noa (“Noa”) was sentenced on October 28, 2011 for Second Degree Assault, a class D Felony; Second Degree Property Damage, a Class A Misdemeanor; and Public Peace Disturbance, a Class B Misdemeanor after being found guilty of the same by a jury of his peers. The sentences were for five years, one year, and six months imprisonment, respectively, sentences running concurrently. Noa filed a verbosely entitled motion for, from what we can glean, are certain parole and/or work release benefits he feels are being denied him unjustly by the Corrections Division and the Warden of Territorial Correctional Facility (“TCF”). The same came on for hearing July 6, 2012, Noa appearing pro se.
[1, 2] Once a court renders a sentence in a criminal case, for which no appeal is taken, that criminal case ends. The criminal is then subject to the jurisdictional purview of the [**2**] executive branch’s Corrections Division. A.S.C.A. § 46.2303. Some collateral issues concerning the Corrections Division or the Warden’s acting outside its/his scope of authority or violating constitutional or statutory rights can be addressed by the High Court’s Trial Division in a civil action. A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(7)-(8). See, e.g., Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43, 53 (Trial Div. 1995).
[3] Here, Noa has tacked on his motion, seemingly asking for a special writ, onto his criminal case; we have no jurisdiction to hear the motion. Noa must either file a civil action or remedy his grievances with the Corrections Division. Regardless, Noa’s present motion is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
