State v. Murray
44 A.3d 139
R.I.2012Background
- Murray was charged in Feb 2010 under DVPA §12-29-4 and §12-29-5 for violating a no-contact order; he pled nolo contendere.
- He was sentenced to four years with one year to serve and three years suspended, plus probation.
- He filed a Rule 35 motion arguing the sentence was illegal because §12-29-5 targets two prior misdemeanors, and one predicate offense was a felony.
- Superior Court denied the Rule 35 motion, holding §12-29-5 applies to two prior domestic violence offenses regardless of misdemeanor/felony status.
- On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed whether the sentence was illegal and whether Murray’s plea waived challenges to the information, ultimately affirming the Superior Court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murray’s Rule 35 motion challenges the legality of the sentence. | Murray argues §12-29-5 makes the sentence illegal. | Murray contends the two-prior-offense requirement was not satisfied given a felony predicate. | No; sentence not illegal; Rule 35 not aimed at conviction validity. |
| Whether Murray’s guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional defects in the information. | Murray asserts potential defects in the information. | Waiver applies due to knowing and voluntary plea. | Waiver applies; defects in information not challengeable post-plea. |
| Whether the sentence complied with §12-29-5’s statutory range. | Argues misapplication of §12-29-5 to his offenses. | Sentence within statutory limits regardless of prior offenses. | Sentence within statutory limits; defense to challenge rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. State, 19 A.3d 71 (R.I.2011) (plea waives nonjurisdictional defects unless certain exceptions apply)
- Miguel v. State, 774 A.2d 19 (R.I.2001) (plea waives nonjurisdictional defects in information)
- United States v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir.1979) (exceptional circumstances to waiver rule absent here)
- Kolaski v. United States, 362 F.2d 847 (5th Cir.1966) (information challenges must be raised pre-plea)
- State v. Hak, 963 A.2d 921 (R.I.2009) (court may correct an illegal sentence at any time)