State v. Shepard, 33 A.3d 158

Adrian Shepard pled nolo contendere in 2004 to conspiracy to commit a felony and received a 10-year sentence with 2 years to serve and 8 years suspended plus probation (2003 case).
In 2006 Shepard’s probation was violated, resulting in revocation of ten months of the suspended sentence.
In 2007 Shepard pled to an amended cocaine possession charge and was sentenced to 8 years at the ACI, with 20 months to serve and 76 months suspended, with probation.
A subsequent domestic assault allegation led to Shepard’s designation as a violator of probation in both the 2003 and 2007 cases.
On June 9, 2009, a probation-violation hearing was held; the state called two witnesses and presented a tape recording; the complainant testified to two incidents of assault and attempts at sexual contact.
The hearing justice found Shepard violated probation and revoked three years from the remaining 86 months of the 2003 suspended sentence; the 2007 sentence remained unchanged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to prove a probation violation?	State contends credibility determination supported violation.	Shepard argues inconsistencies render evidence insufficient.	Yes; evidence supported a violation based on credibility and the thrust of the testimony.
Was the three-year revocation of the suspended sentence a permissible remedy?	State asserts broad discretion to revoke suspended time for violation.	Shepard argues sentencing was excessive and not properly reconsidered.	Yes; revocation was a sustainable exercise of discretion.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the sentence given the underlying charges' disposition?	State contends reconsideration was properly denied under applicable rules.	Shepard argues Rule 35/Rule 60 issues warranted reconsideration.	The court affirmed the denial of reconsideration; no error found in the decision.

State v. English, 21 A.3d 403 (R.I.2011) (probation-violation standard and credibility weighing)
State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811 (R.I.2008) (credibility determinations in probation context)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I.2008) (burden of proof in probation-violation proceedings)
State v. Ferrara, 883 A.2d 1140 (R.I.2005) (trial court credibility findings reviewed for arbitrariness)
State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895 (R.I.1998) (credibility and evidence in probation-violation adjudications)
State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225 (R.I.2009) (court deference to hearing-justice credibility determinations)
State v. Johnson, 899 A.2d 478 (R.I.2006) (limitations on appellate review of probation decisions)
State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954 (R.I.2005) (probation-revocation review standards)
State v. Faria, 947 A.2d 863 (R.I.2008) (certiorari review limited to errors of law)
Crowe Countryside Realty Assocs., Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838 (R.I.2006) (evidentiary standards on appeal in contract/realty disputes)