State v. Chase, 9 A.3d 1248

Indicted for two counts of first-degree murder; pled guilty to two amended counts of manslaughter under a plea agreement based on intoxication and medication evidence.
Sentenced to two consecutive thirty-year terms (fifteen years to serve, fifteen suspended) with probation on the remaining thirty years.
Filed a timely pro se Rule 35 motion to reduce sentence; court ordered submission of grounds; defendant filed grounds and related motions for counsel, hearing, and a sentencing survey.
Superior Court denied Rule 35 motion; defendant appealed; this Court vacated and remanded for hearing and reconsideration.
Hearing held November 25, 2008; defendant sought leniency based on changed circumstances from medications; trial justice denied motion, stating defendant was competent at plea and that the reduction would be unwarranted; multiple post-plea motions were unresolved.
Appeal challenges counsel assignment, hearing adequacy, and constitutionality challenge to the manslaughter statute; issue narrowed to Rule 35 determination and related procedural questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to counsel at Rule 35 proceedings.	Chase contends Rule 44 requires counsel; indigent relief provided.	Rule 35 is posttrial and not a stage of proceedings requiring counsel.	Rule 44 does not require counsel at Rule 35 proceedings.
Whether the denial of the Rule 35 motion was improper given new evidence and benchmarking requests.	Judge should consider new drug-effect evidence and benchmarks.	Evidence and benchmarks warrant leniency.	Judicial discretion to deny affirmed; evidence did not compel relief.
Whether the denial was improper for failing to provide statistical sentencing comparisons.	Statistical disparities could inform consideration.	Benchmarks alone are insufficient; disparities are not controlling.	Trial court properly declined to provide or rely on statistics.
Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed absent aggravating circumstances.	Consecutive structure unsupported by aggravation.	Consecutive sentences justified by plea agreement and multiple victims.	Consecutive sentences upheld in light of plea and circumstances.
Whether the constitutionality challenge to § 11-23-3 was properly waived for lack of briefing.	Constitutional challenge requires analysis.	Waived due to inadequate briefing.	Issue waived for lack of meaningful briefing.

State v. Mendoza, 958 A.2d 1159 (R.I. 2008) (guidance on Rule 35 discretion and pleadings)
State v. Burke, 876 A.2d 1109 (R.I. 2005) (plea reductions and discretionary denial)
State v. Furtado, 774 A.2d 38 (R.I. 2001) (limitations of Rule 35(b) considerations)
State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1995) (limited review of Rule 35 motions)
State v. Rossi, 771 A.2d 906 (R.I. 2001) (policy against heavy interference with sentencing discretion)
State v. Morris, 863 A.2d 1284 (R.I. 2004) (sentence comparisons not sole basis for Rule 35 decision)
State v. Ballard, 699 A.2d 14 (R.I. 1997) (preference for concurrent sentences absent aggravation ( Ballard context))
State v. Coleman, 984 A.2d 650 (R.I. 2009) ( Coleman clarifies precedential value of Ballard)
State v. Collins, 714 A.2d 610 (R.I. 1998) (consecutive sentences justified for multiple victims from a single act)