Opinion ID: 2557061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The DOC's Motion to Vacate

Text: In support of its motion to vacate, the DOC asserted that the Superior Court was without authority to order defendant to take part in the work-release program because only the director of the DOC has been authorized by the General Assembly to allow a prisoner to participate in that program. More specifically, the DOC cited this Court's opinion in State v. Pari, 553 A.2d 135 (R.I.1989), to support its contention that there are only two avenues whereby a defendant may gain access to participation in the work-release program: (1) by a court order to that effect at the time of sentencing where the relevant statute so permits (see G.L.1956 § 12-19-2); [4] or (2) by placement in the program pursuant to the DOC's standard classification/re-classification system. Accordingly, in the DOC's view, since Ms. Graff was not ordered to the work-release program at the time of her sentencing, the only available avenue whereby Ms. Graff might participate in the program would have been through the DOC's classification procedures. In response to the DOC's motion to vacate, Ms. Graff argued to the Superior Court that the DOC did not have standing to present its motion to vacate. More specifically, she asserted that the Department of Attorney General became the `voice' of the DOC, and put them on notice that this proceeding was taking place on May 26. [5] On that basis, defendant contended that the DOC was estopped from being entitled to ask the court to do anything. Therefore, in defendant's view, since the DOC elected to have the Department of Attorney General argue on behalf of the DOC at the initial hearing (on May 26), the DOC was required to rely on their counsel, the Department of Attorney General. On July 10, 2009, a hearing was held on the DOC's motion to vacate. At the conclusion of that hearing, the hearing justice first ruled that the DOC did, in fact, have standing to present and argue its motion to vacate. The hearing justice then ruled that the DOC, not having been noticed by the defendant in making this motion, certainly would have had    the right to be heard. [6] Accordingly, the hearing justice vacated the order of May 26. There then immediately commenced a new hearing on the motion. [7] C