Opinion ID: 2554110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Request for a New Hearing

Text: In a supplemental memorandum to this Court, defendant argues that because of newly discovered evidence, he was denied due process of law and is entitled to a new probation-violation hearing. According to defendant, in late October 2010, his trial counsel received from the state a copy of a letter of suspension dated January 20, 2006, addressed to State Trooper Genaro Ramirez and written by Colonel Stephen M. Pare, then Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police. [4] The letter recounted instances when Trooper Ramirez neglected his duties and was dishonest, and it informed Trooper Ramirez that the resulting disciplinary penalty was two-days suspension, without pay. The defendant contends that the state's failure to provide him with this evidence before the probation-violation hearing denied defendant due process because he could not cross-examine Ramirez about his capacity for truth and veracity, which defendant maintains was called into question by the evidence of the disciplinary action against Ramirez. The defendant relies on State v. Roberts, 841 A.2d 175, 178 (R.I. 2003) and State v. Marrapese, 122 R.I. 494, 504-05, 409 A.2d 544, 550-51 (1979), to support his argument that the state constitutionally was obligated to produce the information relevant to Ramirez's credibility as part of the minimum due-process requirements afforded to defendants at probation-violation hearings. See State v. Pompey, 934 A.2d 210, 214 (R.I.2007) (explaining that [t]he defendant in a violation hearing is entitled to the minimum due process protections of `notice of the hearing, notice of the claimed violation, the opportunity to be heard and present evidence [on] defendant's behalf, and the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against defendant') (quoting State v. Bernard, 925 A.2d 936, 938-39 (R.I.2007)); State v. Campbell, 833 A.2d 1228, 1231, 1233 (R.I.2003) (noting that, although the defendant in a violation hearing is afforded minimum due-process protections, he or she is not entitled to `the full panoply of rights' inherent in a criminal trial, such as the exclusion from evidence of illegally obtained statements). The defendant also contends that photographs of the slashed screen door recently provided to him by the state support [his] theory that it was [Ramirez] who sliced the screen. He maintains that, because this newly discovered evidence is material and credible, a new violation hearing is necessary. However, as the state correctly points out, these issues have not yet been presented in Superior Court, and, consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review. Therefore, because this Court will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, we decline to address the defendant's argument that his due-process rights were violated and that he is entitled to a new violation hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See State v. Kilburn, 809 A.2d 476, 479 (R.I.2002) (citing State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I. 2001) (This issue was not raised in the Superior Court, and therefore, in accordance with our well-established rule, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court on appeal.)).