Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Applicant was convicted for the second-degree murder of his infant daughter. In 2007, Applicant filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered evidence required a new trial. At a hearing before a justice of the superior court, Applicant presented the testimony of Dr. Richard T. Callery, who, while he was employed with Rhode Island’s Office of State Medical Examiners, had reviewed the victim’s file. The hearing justice denied the application for postconviction relief, concluding that the newly discovered evidence was not material and would not change the verdict at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the testimony of Dr. Callery did not warrant postconviction relief. View "D’Alessio v. State" on Justia Law

In January 2006, Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree robbery and presented as a probation violator. In April 2006, Defendant was adjudicated a probation violator and began serving his previously suspended sentences for drug-related charges. Defendant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced in April 2009. Three years later, Defendant filed a motion for credit for time served, arguing that his sentence in the robbery case should have been reduced by the number of days that he spent incarcerated between his arrest and his sentencing. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the order of the superior court, holding that, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 12-19-2, Defendant was entitled to a credit for the time he spent incarcerated between January 2006 and April 2006. View "State v. Wray" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal concerned Defendant’s third attempt to challenge his plea and sentence with a motion to reduce or correct sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial justice denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his life sentence was illegal because he should have been convicted of manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of thirty years, and that the continued imposition of his purportedly illegal sentence constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment to both the federal and the state Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the hearing justice’s decision to deny the Rule 35 motion and that Defendant’s constitutional arguments had no merit. View "State v. Miguel" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to second degree robbery and was sentenced to a term of incarceration with eight and one-half years suspended, with probation. The state later filed a violation notice against Defendant for allegedly violating the terms of her probation. A hearing justice found that Defendant had violated the conditions of her probation by failing to keep the peace and maintain good behavior and imposed the previously suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in executing the remaining eight and one-half years of Defendant’s previously suspended sentence. View "State v. McKinnon-Conneally" on Justia Law

In the town of Tiverton, two police officers from the Little Compton police department had a discussion with Defendant about a motor-vehicle accident that occurred in Little Compton. The officers then transported Defendant in a police cruiser back to the scene of the accident, where they administered field-sobriety tests, which Defendant failed. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, among other offenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to an unlawful arrest, arguing that the officers lacked the authority to arrest him in Tiverton. The trial judge concluded that the arrest was unlawful and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the district court, holding that Defendant was not arrested by the Little Compton police while they were in Tiverton, and therefore, the trial judge erred when she granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Remanded.View "State ex rel. Town of Little Compton v. Simmons" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery and sentenced to a total of thirty years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the count charging a codefendant with carrying a handgun without a license, as Defendant did not show he suffered prejudice from the joinder of the charge to such a degree that he was denied a fair trial; and (2) the remainder of Defendant’s allegations of trial error were not preserved for appellate review.View "State v. Gadson" on Justia Law

In 1992, Appellant was incarcerated while awaiting the disposition of an allegation of first-degree child molestation. In 1994, Appellant pled nolo contendere to one count of first-degree child molestation. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years incarceration with twelve years suspended and twelve years probation. In 1997, Appellant was released from the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). Appellant completed his period of parole in 1999. In 2010, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and applied for postconviction relief, arguing that his probationary period should have commenced and ended fifteen months earlier because his credit for time served caused him to be released from prison that much sooner. The superior court denied relief, concluding that Appellant’s sentence began in 1994 and ran until 2014. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not miscalculate the length of Appellant’s sentence.View "Rose v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of second-degree sexual assault. A jury trial commenced, but the trial justice granted Defendant’s motion for a mistrial due to a discovery violation. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the sexual-assault charge on double jeopardy grounds because of prosecutorial goading. The trial justice denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court upheld the trial justice’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge, holding that sufficient evidence in the record supported the trial justice’s finding that the objective facts did not give rise to an inference of intentional goading.View " State v. Rolle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder, and one count each of conspiracy and arson. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to three consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of evidence of a robbery Defendant committed the day before the murders, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his objections to the content of the limiting instructions regarding the use of the robbery evidence; and (3) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he denied Defendant’s motion to pass the case.View "State v. Clements" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six criminal counts relating to a shooting. Defendant appealed, arguing that, in denying his motion for a new trial, the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence and failed to draw appropriate inferences from the evidence. Specifically, Defendant argued that the testimony of two key witnesses at trial was not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that nothing in the record showed the justice was either clearly wrong or that the justice overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence in his denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial.View "State v. Silva" on Justia Law