State v. Dyer
14 A.3d 227
R.I.2011Background
- Dyer was convicted in February 2000 by a Providence County Superior Court jury of burglary and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling with intent to murder.
- Dyer was sentenced to a total of fifty years, with twenty to serve, to be served consecutively on the three counts.
- Dyer filed a Rule 35 motion in February 2003 to reduce his sentence; the Superior Court denied it by an order dated July 3, 2009, nunc pro tunc to May 15, 2003.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court granted the request to decide the appeal on written submissions and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial.
- The court held that Rule 35 motions are discretionary and review is limited, and the defendant failed to show the sentence was unjust or grossly disparate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 35 motion to reduce sentence was properly denied | Dyer contends remorse and rehabilitation warrant reduction | State argues discretion rests with trial court and burden on Dyer not met | Denied; discretionary basis affirmed |
| Whether the trial court erred by not reducing a sentence as unjust or disproportionate | Dyer asserts sentence lacks justification and is disparate | State asserts no gross disparity or lack of justification | No error; sentence not shown to be without justification or grossly disparate |
| Whether rehabilitation evidence is relevant to Rule 35 relief | Remorse and good behavior considered supportive of reduction | Rehabilitation evidence is irrelevant to initial imposition of sentence | Irrelevant to reexamination of original sentencing; may bear on parole only |
| Whether the defendant carried the burden to show the rare circumstances required to depart from policy against interference | Arguments show rarity of exceptional case warranted | State argues no exceptional case shown | Burden not met; no exceptional justification established |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byrnes, 456 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1983) (Rule 35 relief is discretionary)
- State v. Mendoza, 958 A.2d 1159 (R.I. 2008) (interference with trial court’s discretion disfavored)
- State v. Smith, 676 A.2d 765 (R.I. 1996) (discretionary review of Rule 35; avoid interference)
- State v. Giorgi, 397 A.2d 898 (R.I. 1979) (principle against disturbing sentencing absent justification)
- State v. Fortes, 330 A.2d 404 (R.I. 1975) (policy against interference with sentencing)
- State v. Ouimette, 479 A.2d 702 (R.I. 1984) (burden on defendant to show improper sentence)
- State v. Upham, 439 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1982) (rehabilitation evidence irrelevant to Rule 35 reexamination)
- State v. Coleman, 984 A.2d 650 (R.I. 2009) (consecutive sentences for convictions arising from a single instance within trial justice’s discretion)