The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

A TEACHER who was murdered earlier this year would have been given prison time had he lived.

The Court of Appeal revealed yesterday it would have quashed the man’s sentence for negligent driving, which caused the death of a teenager four years ago, and substituted it with a one-year prison term.

The ruling came after the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the “unduly lenient” sentence handed down to Andre Valdes, a former physical education teacher at the North Long Island High School, who was involved in an accident that killed a 16-year-old student on the island in 2017.

Valdes was the victim of a homicide earlier this year. After the accident in Long Island, he was transferred to the Stapledon School in New Providence where he continued to teach PE. However on New Year’s Day, Valdes’ body was found lying in a pool of blood with apparent gunshot wounds in one of the classrooms of the special needs institution.

In March 2017, Valdes gave a ride to Destyne James Smith and a female passenger. While the woman sat in the cab of his vehicle, Destyne sat on the back of the truck. During the journey, Valdes placed several items—including two mattresses—on the back of his truck with the teen. He was also said to have been speeding. Sometime during the ride, Destyne and one of the mattresses were thrown from the truck. The teenager fractured his skull and was pronounced dead at the scene.

During his trial, Valdes pleaded guilty to manslaughter by negligence and was fined $2,500 or one year imprisonment. He was also placed on five years’ probation and ordered to pay Destyne’s mother $10,000 compensation.

Late last year, prosecutors argued Valdes’ sentence was based on a wrong principle of law. As a result, they sought to have his sentence overturned in favour of time in prison.

However, after the appellate panel of justices reserved its decision on the matter, Valdes was found shot to death.

In a 24-page judgement published to the court’s website yesterday, Justices Jon Isaacs, Roy Jones and Milton Evans said although their decision is no longer of consequence to Valdes, their ruling could “provide guidance to courts on the approach to be taken when sentencing a defendant.” They said after reviewing the circumstances of the case, they would have quashed Valdes’ original sentence and substituted it with 12 months’ imprisonment.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Isaacs, the panel ruled Valdes had been sentenced as if he had been convicted for the offence of killing in the course of dangerous driving instead of manslaughter by negligence.

They said in light of this fact, Valdes’ sentence was in fact based on a wrong principle of law.

“Regarding the leniency of the sentence, leniency is not an unwelcome guest, but it must be balanced,” they noted. “In this regard, the court must always weigh the circumstances of the offence and that of the offender. Further, a sentencing judge is required to always bear in mind the principles of sentencing: retribution, prevention, deterrence and rehabilitation. In the present case, while the judge was clearly aware of the principles of sentencing she failed to apply them to the circumstances of the offence.”

Justice Isaacs said in these circumstances, the sentence imposed was unduly lenient and a “period of incarceration” should have been enforced to “reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to act as a general deterrent to others.”

“In the premises, I would have quashed the judge’s sentence and substitute in its stead, a sentence of 12 months’ incarceration; such sentence running from the date the respondent would have been reduced into custody. The $2,500 fine is to be returned to the respondent’s estate in light of the fact that he is now deceased. I am satisfied that the compensation order is appropriate in the circumstances.”