State v. Jose Rivera, 64 A.3d 742

Defendant Jose Rivera, a bus driver for RIte division of RIPTA, sexually assaulted three developmentally disabled women in 2005.
Victims: two women with severe developmental disabilities and one with developmental disabilities; offenses occurred on separate occasions and were multiple-counts of first- and second-degree sexual assault and one simple assault.
Rivera was convicted on all counts for the first two victims; for the third victim he was found guilty only of simple assault.
Trial court sentenced Rivera to life imprisonment on first-degree sexual assault counts and lengthy concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts, totaling life plus 16 years to serve.
Rivera filed a timely Rule 35 motion to reduce the sentence; the motion was denied after a hearing in 2011.
Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence violates benchmarking guidance	State argues departure from benchmark 35D justified by factors.	Rivera argues sentence is disproportionate to benchmarks and cases.	No reversible error; reasons justify departure from benchmark.
Whether the sentence is grossly disparate from similar cases	State contends contrast with Barkmeyer and Gardiner supports severity.	Rivera contends sentences in Gardiner/Barkmeyer show disparity for single offenses; his case sui generis.	Not error; case involved multiple victims and offenses with severe impact; not grossly disparate.
Whether mitigation evidence (character, letters) warranted reduction	State contends factors weighed in favor of longer punishment given harm and trust breach.	Rivera argues good character and letters should mitigate.	Trial court properly balanced mitigation against offenses; no abuse of discretion.
Whether failure to participate in sex-offender counseling affected the ruling	State argues counseling evidence does not compel reduction.	Rivera asserts counseling attempts show willingness to accept responsibility.	Court correctly declined to credit counseling attempts in Rule 35 analysis.

State v. Snell, 11 A.3d 97 (R.I. 2011) (benchmarks are advisory; trial court within discretion)
State v. Barkmeyer, 32 A.3d 950 (R.I. 2011) (extensive, horrific offenses can justify harsh sentences)
State v. Gardiner, 895 A.2d 704 (R.I. 2006) (single offense against developmentally disabled victim; used for disparity comparison)
State v. Dyer, 14 A.3d 227 (R.I. 2011) (strong policy against interfering with trial justice discretion)