Opinion ID: 2345777
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Text: Mr. Ballard's final argument is that, although his sentence has been reduced on two separate occasions, it remains manifestly excessive and thus violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The applicant's sentence was reduced initially by the original trial justice. Ballard III, 699 A.2d at 15. Thereafter, this Court reduced Ballard's sentence further because we held that sentencing him to two consecutive life sentences was manifestly excessive. Id. at 17. We reduced his sentence to require that all terms be served concurrently. Id. at 19. The applicant now appeals from his adjusted sentence. But in doing so, Ballard again raises an issue that we previously have reviewed and decided. See Ballard IV, 890 A.2d at 1239. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, serves as an `absolute bar to a second cause of action where there exists [an] identity of parties, identity of issues, and finality of judgment in an earlier action.' ElGabri v. Lekas, 681 A.2d 271, 275 (R.I.1996) (quoting Gaudreau v. Blasbalg, 618 A.2d 1272, 1275 (R.I.1993)). Thus, further review of the applicant's sentencing is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata.