Opinion ID: 2356132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Excessiveness of the Sentence Imposed

Text: On appeal, defendant also asserts that the sentence imposed by the hearing justice was excessive. The defendant argues that his original sentence for the underlying breaking and entering charge (to which he pled nolo contendere ) was excessive and that he should not have received a sentence of more than eighteen months on that occasion. In addition, defendant contends that the hearing justice at his probation violation hearing did not give due weight to his mental health problems [4] and to the state's recommendation that the hearing justice impose just three years of the nine years remaining on defendant's suspended sentence. Finally, defendant contends that the five years imposed was excessive in light of the hearing justice's statement that defendant had been the target of hateful and perhaps illegal conduct. With respect to defendant's challenge to the original sentence imposed for the breaking and entering charge, we have previously stated that, pursuant to a well-established principle, 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. LaRoche, 883 A.2d 1151, 1157 (R.I.2005); see also State v. Burke, 811 A.2d 1158, 1168 (R.I.2002). Any objection to defendant's original sentence should have been made within 120 days of the time when the [original] sentence was imposed, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. [5] LaRoche, 883 A.2d at 1157. Because defendant failed to do so, such an argument cannot be properly maintained in this proceeding. Id. With respect to defendant's argument that the five-year term imposed at the probation violation hearing was excessive, this Court has previously held that hearing justices possess wide latitude in deciding whether a probation violator's suspended sentence should be removed in whole, in part, or not at all. State v. Tucker, 747 A.2d 451, 454 (R.I.2000). Moreover, despite defendant's arguments to the contrary, the record clearly indicates that the hearing justice did, in fact, consider defendant's mental health limitations as well as the state's sentencing recommendation in fashioning the appropriate sentence. In making that determination, the hearing justice stated: I would indicate that my initial impression after hearing the evidence and a review of the defendant's record was that a nine year sentence to serve would have been appropriate, but I considered the Attorney General's recommendation of three years, and I also consider the fact that this defendant has a great burden. He has some serious mental health issues and thus, although no one argued this, I took that into account for purposes of this violation hearing and only for that purpose, I considered that the defendant might be entitled to something akin to a diminished capacity argument. So, I factored that in and took four years off the sentence I would have otherwise imposed. (Emphasis added.) It is utterly clear to us that, after finding that the defendant was a violator, the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in fashioning the defendant's sentence. Indeed, it is our view that his thoughtful analysis of the various relevant factors and the resultant sentence struck an appropriate balance between both the defendant's mental health problems and his destructive and criminal behavior.