Opinion ID: 2293133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Sentencing Clarity with Respect to Probation

Text: Fourth, applicant points to an inconsistency between the trial justice's oral sentence, in which the judge omitted any imposition of probation upon release, and the justice's signed judgment of conviction, which specifies that applicant will be on probation while serving his suspended sentence. [4] When it considered Lyons' most recent application for postconviction relief, the Superior Court, as it did with the previous three arguments, rejected this issue as barred by res judicata. Res judicata means that a judgment on the merits in the first case not only is conclusive with regard to the issues that were actually determined but also precludes reconsideration of all other issues that might have been raised in the prior proceeding. Ferrell, 971 A.2d at 620 (quoting Ramirez v. State, 933 A.2d 1110, 1112 (R.I.2007)). The sentence Lyons challenges today was imposed more than fifteen years ago after he was convicted in 1996. There is no reason why this challenge could not have been raised in applicant's first application for postconviction relief. Accordingly, the Superior Court was correct to find this argument prohibited by res judicata.