200 A.3d 1068
R.I.2019Background
- In 2007 D’Amico pled nolo contendere to multiple felonies (robbery, conspiracy, assault) and received concurrent sentences with portions suspended and probation.
- On November 23, 2011 a hooded man robbed a Providence 7-Eleven; surveillance video and stills were obtained and a photo of the suspect circulated to police.
- In January 2012 the state filed a Rule 32(f) probation-violation report alleging D’Amico committed the 2011 robbery; a two-day violation hearing was held in May 2012.
- Siddiq (store manager) identified D’Amico from a six-photo array and in court; another employee, Cowgen, gave a non‑conclusive identification and could not identify D’Amico at trial.
- The hearing justice credited Siddiq’s ID, described a surveillance photo as a “dead ringer” for D’Amico, found a probation violation, and revoked the suspended portions of D’Amico’s sentences.
- D’Amico did not timely appeal in 2012; in 2017 he sought certiorari to this Court claiming ineffective assistance (failure to advise re: right to appeal) and challenging the sufficiency of evidence and applicability of a 2016 Rule 32(f) amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden of proof after 2016 Rule 32(f) amendment | State: original hearing satisfied pre-amendment standard; amendment not retroactive | D’Amico: remand for new hearing because appeal was pending when rule changed | Judgments were final in 2012; amendment applies prospectively only; no remand |
| Sufficiency of evidence for probation violation | State: surveillance photos + Siddiq’s close-range ID satisfied standard | D’Amico: ID unreliable (hood, stress, grainy photos, Cowgen’s non‑ID) | Hearing justice’s credibility finding supported; not arbitrary or capricious; violation affirmed |
| Whether certiorari revived a non‑appealed judgment | State: certiorari is discretionary and does not convert final judgment into pending appeal | D’Amico: certiorari should allow application of the new Rule 32(f) | Certiorari grant does not make a final judgment ‘‘pending appeal’’; judgments remained final |
| Standard of review for probation violation findings | State: defer to hearing justice’s credibility assessments | D’Amico: asks this Court to reweigh evidence | Court applies deferential standard; will not second‑guess credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gromkiewicz, 43 A.3d 45 (R.I. 2012) (probation‑violation hearing purpose and required showing pre‑2016 amendment)
- State v. Hazard, 68 A.3d 479 (R.I. 2013) (state must prove violation to the reasonable satisfaction of the hearing justice under earlier Rule 32(f))
- State v. Gibson, 126 A.3d 427 (R.I. 2015) (probation‑violation burden remains less exacting than criminal trial; deference to hearing justice)
- State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225 (R.I. 2009) (duty of hearing justice to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility)
- Marcello v. Neves, 912 A.2d 420 (R.I. 2006) (judgment becomes final upon expiration of appeal period)