State v. BARKMEYER, 32 A.3d 950

Barkmeyer convicted of first-degree child molestation for molesting his eight-year-old stepdaughter; sentenced to 50 years at ACI with 30 to serve, 20 suspended, plus sex-offender registration and treatment programme.
Defendant timely sought Rule 35(a) sentence reduction; hearing held Aug. 21, 2009 before trial judge.
Evidence showed he was twice rejected from the Sex Offender Treatment Program for not taking responsibility for the crime; admission of guilt is a prerequisite for program entry.
Defendant testified to rehabilitation efforts in prison (law library, research, and work) but stated he would not admit guilt due to ongoing postconviction relief and Fifth Amendment concerns.
Trial judge acknowledged rehabilitation efforts but denied reduction, emphasizing the horror of the offense and absence of “substantial change in circumstances.”
Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews de novo the Rule 35 decision but defers to trial court’s sentencing discretion; court affirms the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rehabilitative efforts were properly considered or deemed irrelevant	State argues rehabilitative work is not required to reduce sentence; relevance limited.	Barkmeyer contends rehabilitative efforts show change in circumstances and merit leniency.	No error; rehabilitation efforts not substantial enough to warrant reduction.
Whether penalizing or faulting for Fifth Amendment non-admission violated rights	State argues admission could affect program eligibility; failure to admit not punished.	Defendant asserts pressuring to admit guilt infringes Fifth Amendment rights.	Trial court treated non-admission as a neutral fact; no due process violation; no penalty for asserting rights.
Standards of review for Rule 35 motions	State maintains deference to trial court’s discretion.	Barkmeyer contends exceptional case requiring alteration of deference.	Appeal denied; decision within discretion; not unjustified given crime severity.

State v. Chase, 9 A.3d 1248 (R.I.2010) (strong policy against intruding on sentencing discretion; limited review)
State v. Rossi, 771 A.2d 906 (R.I.2001) (extremely limited review of Rule 35 decisions)
State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791 (R.I.1995) (limited grounds for disturbing sentencing decisions)
State v. Ruffner, 5 A.3d 864 (R.I.2010) (prison behavior generally not credited in Rule 35; focus on severity of crime)
State v. Guzman, 794 A.2d 474 (R.I.2002) (appropriate prison behavior is expected and generally irrelevant to initial sentence)
State v. Dyer, 14 A.3d 227 (R.I.2011) (rare exception to policy against interference with sentencing; strict standard for reversal)
State v. Giorgi, 121 R.I. 280, 397 A.2d 898 (1979) (prior guidance on Article III discretion in sentencing)
State v. Thornton, 800 A.2d 1016 (R.I.2002) (factors considered in imposing sentence include rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment)
State v. Mendoza, 958 A.2d 1159 (R.I.2008) (Rule 35 motions may be granted for unduly severe sentences)
State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482 (R.I.1994) (due process limits on penalties for exercising constitutional rights)