Court Opinion

ID: 9751182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:11:14.893395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:37.416022
License: Public Domain

Justice FLAHERTY,
dissenting.
I dissent only from that part of the majority’s opinion that affirms the trial judge’s imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. I acknowledge the difficult decision that the trial justice faced in this case as well as the thoughtful analysis that led him to the conclusion that the most serious sentence was appropriate for this defendant. I also acknowledge the well-reasoned opinion of the majority on all the issues in this case, *28including the sentence imposed by the trial justice.
However, after undertaking a comprehensive and independent review of the entire record, as I am required to do by G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-5, and even though I agree with the majority that the murder of Ms. Hilario was an aggravated battery, I arrive at a different conclusion with respect to the sentence. I do so because I do not believe that this case fits into that “narrow class of the most heinous crimes” for which life without parole, the most severe penalty known in our state, is reserved. See State v. Brown, 898 A.2d 69, 86 (R.I.2006). It is true that defendant has not demonstrated significant remorse for the murder of Ms. Hilario.39 It is equally true, however, that until the time of Ms. Hilario’s murder, defendant had not been convicted of any crime. Much to the contrary, the record shows that he was a community leader who gave much of his time, effort, and emotion to others. Scores of letters sent to the trial justice attest to defendant’s positive character traits and, in my opinion, provide strong evidence that he always was regarded as a caring man who had earned the respect of those with whom he came into contact.
At the time of his sentencing, the defendant was in his mid-fifties. If he had been sentenced to the mandatory term of life in prison, he would not even be eligible for parole until he had served a term of twenty years. Even then, he would be granted his freedom only after a unanimous vote of the parole board. -See G.L.1956 § 13-8-13(a)(3)(i) — (ii). By that time, the defendant would be in his mid-seventies. I am confident that after that period of incarceration, the parole board would be more than sufficiently equipped to assess the defendant’s conduct while imprisoned, any demonstrated remorse for his crime, and his ability to return to society as a peaceable person.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion affirming the sentence of life without parole, and I would reduce the trial justice’s sentence to life imprisonment.

. As the majority notes, the presentence report indicated that, at least at the time of his post conviction interview, defendant was not only in denial about what he had done, but also had attempted to shift the blame for his crime to others, including to members of the Providence Police Department.