State v. Bouffard
35 A.3d 909
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Bouffard appealed a Rule 35 sentence-correction order after a hearing justice restructured his sentencing package.
- Bouffard’s history includes 1991 conspiracy to commit extortion and aiding/abetting, with concurrent sentences and multiple probation terms.
- He violated probation in 2000 and 2006, leading to a 2006 hearing and a seven-year to-serve component in the 1997/2000 cases.
- The 2006 violation prompted the magistrate to remove seven years of suspension from the 2000 case, while Bouffard challenged the legality of the result.
- The hearing justice found the challenged sentence illegal or illegally imposed but then re-bundled the package to seven years to serve, applying Goncalves.
- This Court affirmed, remanding to the Superior Court, and reaffirmed the viability of post-incident re-bundling to preserve original sentencing intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to rebundle another judge's sentence | Bouffard contends a different judge lacked rebundling authority. | Bouffard argues Goncalves limits rebundling to original sentencing magistrate. | Goncalves authority may be exercised by another judge. |
| Conformity to original sentencing intent | Bouffard claims the re-bundled sentence deviates from original intent. | State contends original intent supported by Bouffard’s history and the magistrate’s aims. | Rebundling preserved the original sentencing intent. |
| Sentence fit after underlying charge dismissal | Bouffard argues the seven-year term no longer fits crime after dismissal of underlying charge. | State maintains probation-violation focus allows intact rebundling regardless of dismissal. | Sentence fits the probation-violation framework; dismissal does not require reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goncalves, 941 A.2d 842 (R.I. 2008) (hearing-justice rebundling to preserve original sentencing intent)
- State v. Studman, 468 A.2d 918 (R.I. 1983) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentences in probation context)
- Pelliccia v. Sharkey, 110 R.I. 319 (R.I. 1972) (concurrency presumption in absence of express consecutive language)
- State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811 (R.I. 2008) (wide latitude to probation-violation judgments)
- State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225 (R.I. 2009) (upholds rebundling implications post-dismissal of underlying charge)