State v. Diefenderfer, 32 A.3d 931

Defendant Roy Diefenderfer participated in a crime scheme to rob jewelry salesmen by setting up a fake store in a shopping plaza.
He was convicted by a jury on most charges in May–October 2005 and sentenced October 2005 to concurrent terms, including lengthy robbery and kidnapping sentences.
This Court previously affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in May 2009.
In September 2009, defendant moved under Rule 35(a) for a reduced sentence based on good behavior, family hardship, and lesser involvement than accomplices.
A sentence-reduction hearing was held October 28, 2009 before a different Superior Court justice (the sentencing justice had died).
December 3, 2009, the hearing justice denied the motion, finding the defendant’s sentence not grossly disparate or without justification; the court noted the hearing should not speculate on what the sentencing justice might have done.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hearing justice applied the correct standard	State contends the hearing justice used the appellate standard.	Diefenderfer argues the hearing justice should exercise his own discretion as if he were the sentencing justice.	Hearing justice applied the wrong standard; standard must be the trial-discretion review.
Whether the Rule 35 motion was properly denied	State asserts no changed circumstances or justification warranted reduction.	Diefenderfer asserts need for reconsideration in light of personal rehabilitation and culpability.	Remand required to reconsider under correct standard.
Whether the case should be remanded for a new hearing	State suggests the record supports denial and no remand is needed.	Diefenderfer seeks new hearing with proper standard.	Remand for a new hearing consistent with the correct standard.

State v. Ferrara, 818 A.2d 642 (R.I. 2003) (interference with trial justice’s discretion limited; justify or gross disparity standard)
Rossi, 771 A.2d 906 (R.I. 2001) (manifestly excessive sentence defined by disparity without justification)
State v. Coleman, 984 A.2d 650 (R.I. 2009) (strong policy against interfering with trial justice’s discretion; rare exceptions)
State v. Mendoza, 958 A.2d 1159 (R.I. 2008) (Rule 35 review is limited; plea for leniency framework)
State v. Ruffner, 5 A.3d 864 (R.I. 2010) (Rule 35 review limited; discretion governed by standard of review)
State v. Snell, 11 A.3d 97 (R.I. 2011) (burden on defendant to show sentence violates standard)
State v. McManus, 950 A.2d 1180 (R.I. 2008) (vacated order for erroneous appellate standard; remand)
Byrnes, 456 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1983) (passage of time may lead to more sympathetic consideration; discretion to reconsider)