Eddie M. Linde v. State of Rhode Island
2013 R.I. LEXIS 135
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Linde was convicted in 2002 of nine felonies, including second-degree murder, with a mandatory life sentence for discharging a firearm causing death, consecutive to murder.
- Sentence was forty years for murder, twenty to serve, plus a mandatory life term for the firearm offense; later reduced for murder to ten years to serve.
- This postconviction relief petition is Linde’s third attempt to challenge the convictions or the mandatory consecutive life sentence.
- The defense argued Eighth Amendment, Double Jeopardy, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
- An evidentiary hearing was held in January 2012; Feinstein offered a diminutions-capacity analysis, while trial counsel testified about strategy.
- The trial court denied relief, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed to review, affirming the denial on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment challenge to the mandatory life sentence | Linde contends the sentence is unconstitutional | State maintains Monteiro upholds constitutionality | Not unconstitutional; Monteiro controls |
| Double Jeopardy for murder and firearm-use counts | Consecutive sentences violate double jeopardy | Legislature intended cumulative punishments | Consecutive sentences valid under Blockburger and Hunter tests |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for diminished-capacity defense | Counsel failed to pursue diminished-capacity defense | Strategic decision not to pursue diminished-capacity defense was reasonable | Counsel not ineffective; strategic choice within trial counsel’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2007) (upholds mandatory consecutive life sentence for murder with firearm use)
- State v. Ballard, 699 A.2d 14 (R.I. 1997) (rejects reliance on Ballard for disproportionality of mandatory sentences)
- State v. Rodriguez, 822 A.2d 894 (R.I. 2003) (dual-offense double jeopardy analysis under Blockburger and Hunter)
- McKinney v. State, 843 A.2d 463 (R.I. 2004) (proportionality considerations in evaluating punishment)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (double jeopardy sentencing principles on legislative intent to impose consecutive sentences)
- Marsich, 10 A.3d 435 (R.I. 2010) (outlines two double-jeopardy tests applied in RI)