PHILIPSBURG:--- The Court of Appeal has sentenced Alexander Mario Ettrick Chandler, Alphonse Asa-Asher Charles and Diomedes Mendez Santeli to 12 years in prison each for their roles in the fatal shooting of 24-year-old Tion D’Sean Scott outside the Gentlemen’s Club in Defiance on April 13, 2025.
In judgments delivered on October 19, 2026, the Court found all three men guilty of jointly committing manslaughter and firearm offenses. The Court will deduct time already spent in pre-trial detention from their sentences.
The rulings increased the prison terms the Court of First Instance imposed on September 11, 2025. Chandler and Charles had each received eight years, while Mendez Santeli had received three years for firearm possession after being acquitted of the charge relating to Scott’s shooting.
The Prosecutor General sought 14-year sentences for Chandler and Mendez Santeli and a 16-year sentence for Charles. The Appeal Court instead imposed 12 years on each defendant.
Dispute Escalated Outside the Club
According to the Court’s findings, the shooting followed a longstanding conflict involving allegations about a stolen chain and missing vehicle parts.
Inside the club, an argument developed between Mendez Santeli and Chandler on one side and Scott and his friend on the other. The Court found that Chandler loaded his firearm and challenged Scott to come outside.
Scott subsequently left the club, mounted his scooter, and headed toward the parking lot exit. Chandler followed him and gestured for him to stop. Scott dismounted near the exit, while Charles and Mendez Santeli moved in that direction.
The Court established that Chandler then fired once at Scott from a distance of several meters. Bystanders scattered, and Scott fled onto the public road, leaving his scooter behind.
Charles moved onto a raised area on the opposite side of the exit and took out his firearm. When Scott returned to his scooter and attempted to ride away, Charles fired several shots toward him, the Court found.
Scott fell with the scooter and continued fleeing on foot. Mendez Santeli, who had climbed onto a wall overlooking Scott’s escape route, continued shooting toward him.
The Court concluded that all three defendants fired toward Scott in succession within approximately half a minute. One of the bullets struck him and caused his death.
Court Finds Joint Responsibility
Although investigators could not establish which defendant fired the fatal bullet, the Court ruled that this did not prevent all three from being convicted of jointly committing manslaughter.
The judges found that the men had worked closely and consciously together during the armed attack. Each made a substantial contribution by personally firing toward Scott, including as he attempted to escape.
The Court found that their actions amounted to a joint and, to some extent, coordinated attack.
The forensic examination established that Scott died from blood loss and tissue damage caused by a gunshot passing through his torso.
Chandler’s Self-Defense Argument Rejected
Chandler’s defense argued that Scott had threatened him, drawn a firearm, and fired first, prompting a defensive reaction.
The Court rejected that account, finding no support in the case file for the claim that Scott had fired at Chandler. Only one shot could be heard at the first shooting moment, and the Court established that Chandler fired it.
The judges also found Chandler’s conduct offensive: he provoked and pursued a confrontation while Scott was attempting to leave.
Although the Court could not establish or exclude that Scott had drawn a firearm, it ruled that Chandler’s provocative conduct and the circumstances of the confrontation prevented a successful claim of self-defense.
Funeral Expenses Awarded
The Court awarded Scott’s mother, identified in the judgments as M.B. Scott, US$8,255 in funeral expenses. The three defendants are jointly and severally liable for that amount, meaning it is one shared obligation rather than three separate awards.
Her additional claim for psychological injury was declared inadmissible in the criminal proceedings because the available evidence did not sufficiently establish the required injury and causal connection. That portion of the claim may be pursued in civil court.
In determining the sentences, the Court emphasized that the defendants shot at a fleeing man in an area where other people were present, endangering bystanders and contributing to public insecurity.
The judges also highlighted Sint Maarten’s persistent firearm problem and the severe, lasting suffering inflicted on Scott’s surviving relatives.