Opinion ID: 2258574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Excessive Punishment and Disproportionate Sentencing

Text: LaRoche finally argues that the penalty imposed for violating the terms of his probation is constitutionally infirm because it is disproportionately harsh for a mere technical violation of probation. This argument, however, fails on two grounds. First, the issue was not raised in the trial court and therefore cannot be raised on appeal. State v. Silvia, 798 A.2d 419, 427 (R.I.2002). It is axiomatic that `this [C]ourt will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal that was not properly presented before the trial court.' Id. This Court has carved out an exception to this rule when `basic constitutional rights are concerned,'    the alleged error [is] more than harmless, and the exception    implicate[s] an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial. Id. LaRoche does not fit within this narrow exception to the rule. Thus, this issue is waived on appeal. But, even if LaRoche had raised this issue before the hearing justice and then properly preserved it for appeal, we would consider it unavailing. LaRoche's argument fails to recognize the well-established principle that when a probationer violates the terms of his or her probation, such conduct triggers liability for the prison term that originally was imposed for the underlying offense. State v. Burke, 811 A.2d 1158, 1168 (R.I.2002). Therefore, the constitutionality of a sentence of incarceration for violating probation must be weighed in the context of the original offense. LaRoche originally was sentenced to five years of incarceration after being convicted on two counts of obtaining money by false pretenses and three counts of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses. He later was sentenced to ten years of incarceration for perjury, which sentence was suspended, with probation. Any objection to these sentences should have been made within 120 days of the time when the sentence was imposed, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be properly maintained in this proceeding.