State v. Graff
17 A.3d 1005
R.I.2011Background
- Graff pled nolo contendere to two counts of DUI resulting in death and received concurrent 15-year sentences with 10 years to serve and 5 years suspended on June 18, 2007.
- Graff was not ordered to work-release at sentencing; the judgment followed the plea and sentencing, with no work-release designation.
- On April 27, 2009, Graff moved to modify her sentence to participate in a work-release program during incarceration.
- The Superior Court granted the motion on May 26, 2009; three days later the DOC moved to vacate the order claiming lack of authority.
- A July 10, 2009 hearing addressed DOC standing; the court vacated the May 26 order and a second hearing was held on Graff’s motion.
- The Supreme Court vacates the Superior Court’s order, holding that sentencing is a discrete act and post-sentencing modification to place a defendant in work-release is not authorized under the relevant statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to modify sentence is authorized. | Graff argues Pari permits modification; motion valid | DOC argues only sentencing or classification procedures allow work release | No; motion to modify is not authorized post-sentencing |
| Whether classification of inmates for work release is the DOC's prerogative. | Pari framework allows court-based work release beyond immediate sentencing | DOC alone controls work-release classification and procedures | DOC classification authority does not validate post-sentencing modification |
| Whether the Superior Court violated separation of powers by altering Graff’s sentence via work release. | Court can modify under statute 31-27-2.2 | Modification usurps executive DOC powers | No valid basis for post-sentencing modification; separation of powers not satisfied |
| What is the proper interpretation of sentencing and the authority of the sentencing judge under 31-27-2.2? | 31-27-2.2 gives ongoing discretion to the sentencing judge | Sentencing is a discrete act; discretion ends at imposition | Sentencing is discrete; 31-27-2.2 does not authorize post-sentencing work release modification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pari, 553 A.2d 135 (R.I. 1989) (work-release authority restricted to sentencing or DOC classification under Pari)