State v. Kenneth W. Keenan
68 A.3d 588
R.I.2013Background
- Keenan charged by information with assault with a dangerous weapon and assault with intent to rob; habitual-offender notice filed.
- Defendant pled nolo contendere to count 1; count 2 dismissed as part of plea; plea form stated he waived the right to file a Rule 35 motion.
- Trial court imposed 20-year total sentence with 10 years to serve and 10 years suspended with probation.
- On May 21, 2009, defendant, pro se, filed multiple motions including a motion for sentence reduction; a hearing treated as Rule 35 motion occurred on October 19, 2009.
- Trial judge denied the motion without prejudice, explaining he might restore it in appropriate future circumstances but did not do so here.
- On December 10, 2010, defendant filed another motion to reduce/assign under Rule 35; the State objected; a May 4, 2011 hearing resulted in a reduction to 9 years to serve and 11 years suspended with probation, i.e., a 20-year sentence with 9 to serve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 35 denial without prejudice can be revisited. | Keenan argues denial without prejudice permitted rebriefing. | State contends no pending Rule 35 motion remained to be revisited. | Motion not properly before court; denial without prejudice disposed of the motion. |
| Effect of waiver of the right to seek Rule 35 relief in the plea agreement. | Waiver should not bar later consideration under Rule 35. | State relies on waiver to bar reconsideration. | Court did not decide waiver issue; quashes judgment on other grounds. |
| Whether the second Rule 35 filing was timely and properly characterized as a new motion. | December 10, 2010 filing is a new motion within 120 days. | Second filing is outside the 120-day window and not the same motion. | Second filing not properly before the trial court; prohibited relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruffner, 5 A.3d 864 (R.I. 2010) (Rule 35 motion is a plea for leniency; limited review of sentencing discretion)
- State v. Barkmeyer, 32 A.3d 950 (R.I. 2011) (Strong policy against interfering with trial court's sentencing discretion)
- Grady v. Narragansett Electric Co., 962 A.2d 34 (R.I. 2009) (Not opining on issues not essential to decision; respect for agency discretion)
- Calise v. Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164 (R.I. 2006) (Comment on not elevating form over substance; issues not essential to decision)
- New Harbor Village, LLC v. Town of New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review, 894 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2006) (Avoids elevating form over substance in legal proceedings)