State v. Pona, 13 A.3d 642

Pona pled nolo contendere in 2003 to felony assault, simple assault, and receipt of stolen goods; sentenced to multi-year term with probation on some counts.
In 2006, he pled nolo contendere to unlawful breaking and entering, receiving a 10-year sentence with probation.
On June 15, 2008, Pona was arrested for attempted unlawful breaking and entering, prompting a probation-violation notice under Rule 32(f).
A violation hearing was held on November 18, 2008, with three witnesses: Ramirez (eyewitness), Meier (resident at 54 Whitmarsh Street), and Officer LaFazia.
The hearing justice credited Ramirez and Meier as highly credible, but found LaFazia less credible yet sufficient via his report, concluding Pona violated probation.
On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s probation-violation adjudication and denied newly discovered-evidence/ due-process challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the hearing justice err in finding a probation violation based on witness credibility?	Pona argues two witnesses were not credible and the evidence doesn’t support violation.	Pona contends credibility issues show arbitrariness in the finding.	No; the court upheld the credibility determinations and the finding of violation.
Was Pona entitled to a new violation hearing based on newly discovered evidence and cross-examination rights?	Ramirez credibility was unfairly unexamined due to undisclosed evidence; new photos/evidence material.	Due process requires cross-examination and disclosure of material credibility evidence.	No; issues not raised below; denial of new hearing affirmed.

State v. Gilbert, 984 A.2d 26 (R.I.2009) (probation-revocation standard; lower burden of proof)
State v. Tetreault, 973 A.2d 489 (R.I.2009) (credibility weighed by hearing justice in probation hearings)
State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954 (R.I.2005) (reasonably satisfactory evidence standard for probation violations)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I.2008) (application of reasonable-satisfaction standard)
State v. Jones, 969 A.2d 676 (R.I.2009) (reaffirmation that appellate review defers credibility assessments)
State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982 (R.I.2003) (probation-violation procedures focus on conditions and conduct)
State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225 (R.I.2009) (no second-guessing of reasoned credibility determinations)
State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895 (R.I.1998) (probation standard of proof)
State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811 (R.I.2008) (credibility weighing in probation context)