State v. DELAROSA, 39 A.3d 1043

Delarosa pleaded nolo contendere on counts of unlawful possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy; sentenced to five years with probation and concurrent terms.
July 27, 2010, a home-invasion robbery allegedly involved Delarosa; Rule 32(f) notice filed July 30, 2010 alleging probation violation.
A five-day probation-violation hearing featured five witnesses, including Bartley, the driver who implicated Delarosa.
Bartley testified to recognizing Delarosa as a participant and described a silver gun and mask; her testimony was influenced by a cooperation agreement with the state.
The hearing justice credited Bartley, found probation violation, and imposed sentence modifications; Delarosa appealed on credibility, discovery, and allocution grounds.
Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding there was reasonable evidence of violation and addressing each challenged issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of Bartley given deal	Bartley lied to police but Barley credible, and corroborated by victims.	Bartley’s favorable deal undermines credibility and taints trial.	Credibility upheld; trial court properly weighed testimony.
Discovery regarding Bartley’s second encounter	State complied with discovery; no pre-hearing statement existed.	Due process requires pre-hearing disclosure of witness testimony.	No discovery violation; Rule 26.1 compliance satisfied given lack of prior statements.
Allocution before sentencing	Better practice allows allocution; not mandated in probation violations.	Defendant should have opportunity to address court prior to sentencing.	Allocution not required absent consecutive sentences; no error found.

State v. English, 21 A.3d 403 (R.I.2011) (probation-violation standard of review)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I.2008) (reasonably satisfactory standard for violations)
State v. Pona, 13 A.3d 642 (R.I.2011) (standard for probation-violation findings)
State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954 (R.I.2005) (probation-violation connection to guilt standard)
State v. Jones, 969 A.2d 676 (R.I.2009) (allocution and sentencing considerations in probation cases)
State v. Ratchford, 732 A.2d 120 (R.I.1999) (better practice of allowing counsel to address court)
State v. Gautier, 871 A.2d 347 (R.I.2005) (probation-violation hearing preparation challenges)
State v. Cianci, 430 A.2d 756 (R.I.1981) (Rule 26.1 production after witness testimony)
State v. Vashey, 823 A.2d 1151 (R.I.2003) (probation hearings lack full criminal-prosecution rights)