State v. Cory J. Roberts, 59 A.3d 693

Background

Roberts pled to multiple 1992 offenses including child molestation; sentenced to 30 years on each count, 15 years to serve, 15 years suspended with probation.
In 2004, after a Washington probation violation, the trial justice vacated the suspension, ordered five years to serve, with ten years remaining suspended on condition of sex-offender treatment; failure to enroll or complete treatment would activate the ten years.
Roberts violated probation in 2009 (leaving state without permission and arrest in Virginia); the court then ordered eight years to be served with two years suspended, effectively executing part of the suspended term.
In 2010, Roberts moved under Rule 35(a) to correct the 2004 sentence, arguing the stayed portion was illegal; the court vacated the 2004 sentence and resentenced nunc pro tunc to 2004 for five years and left ten years suspended, with probation.
The court also issued a nunc pro tunc 2009 judgment to execute eight of the ten years and suspend two, preserving the original sentencing scheme but not exceeding original terms.
Roberts appealed, challenging timeliness, the authority to stay execution, and due process implications of the 2009 probation-violation sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 35 motion was timely	State contends motion only attacked illegal manner of imposition.	Roberts argues the stay-of-execution component was an illegal sentence.	Timeliness limited to illegal-sentence challenges; motion timely only to that extent.
Whether the probation-revocation court could stay part of a suspended sentence	State argues § 12-19-9 permits staying a suspended sentence.	Roberts asserts the stay was authorized and valid.	Probation-revocation court may not stay execution of a previously suspended sentence; court corrected error but preserved intended scheme.
Whether the ten-year stayed portion vanished and Roberts could not be charged as a probation violator in 2009	State maintained the ten-year stayed portion remained as part of the sentence.	Roberts contends the stayed portion was void ab initio and not in probation by 2009.	Heath controls: not vitiating the stayed portion; the sentence remained, and proper recalibration occurred within authority.
Whether the 2010 resentencing and 2009 nunc pro tunc corrections were proper re-bundling	State asserts adjustments preserved original sentencing scheme and did not exceed original terms.	Roberts argues the resentencing improperly recalibrated beyond the 2004 illegal portion.	Court acted within discretion to re-bundle to preserve original sentencing scheme; no abuse of discretion.
Whether Roberts’ due process rights were violated by being treated as a probation violator in 2009	State notes Roberts admitted violation and had notice of probation terms.	Roberts contends he was not on probation after completing five-year term.	Issue not preserved; even if addressed, claim lacks merit given notice and proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415 (R.I. 2009) (defining an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a))
State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132 (R.I. 2008) (legal framework for illegal-imposition issues)
State v. Tucker, 747 A.2d 451 (R.I. 2000) (probation-violation authority to impose conditions under § 12-19-9)
State v. Heath, 659 A.2d 116 (R.I. 1995) (initial sentencing controls remaining on probation)
State v. Parson, 844 A.2d 178 (R.I. 2004) (statutory clarity of § 12-19-9)
State v. Goncalves, 941 A.2d 842 (R.I. 2008) (sentence re-bundling after Rule 35(a) correction)
State v. Bouffard, 35 A.3d 909 (R.I. 2012) (affirming re-bundling approach post-correction)
State v. Rice, 727 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 1999) (probation violation procedures and sentencing)