State v. Tapia
2012 R.I. LEXIS 99
| R.I. | 2012Background
- In April 1994, a grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against Tapia for one count of first-degree arson, one count of conspiracy, and six counts of first-degree murder arising from a fatal house fire.
- In September 1996 Tapia pleaded guilty to all eight counts after facing potential life imprisonment without parole on murder counts.
- Tapia was sentenced to six concurrent life terms for murder, ten years for conspiracy to be served concurrently, and twenty years for arson to be served consecutively to the other terms.
- On December 1, 2009 Tapia filed a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the arson sentence should have merged with the murder convictions and thus violated double jeopardy.
- A February 22, 2010 hearing occurred; the judge indicated the motion was untimely under Rule 12(b)(2)–(b)(3) and did not reach the merits, issuing a March 22, 2010 order denying the motion.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Rule 35(a) motion was not appropriate to reach the merits and that the arson sentence was not illegal under Rule 35 given the penalty for first-degree arson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should arson merge with murder for double jeopardy purposes? | Tapia contends arson should merge with murder convictions. | Tapia argues the arson count resulted in illegal sentencing due to non-merger. | Merger issue not reached; court affirmed on timeliness grounds. |
| Whether a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence was properly considered given timeliness and procedures. | Tapia argues Rule 35(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence post-conviction. | State argues the motion was untimely and procedurally inappropriate. | Motion untimely; merits not reached; sentence not illegal under Rule 35. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415 (R.I.2009) (defines what constitutes an illegal sentence for Rule 35 purposes)
- State v. Teixeira, 944 A.2d 132 (R.I.2008) (Rule 35(a) analysis and illegality standard)
- State v. Murray, 44 A.3d 139 (R.I.2012) (timeliness and scope of Rule 35 actions)
- State v. LaPlante, 409 A.2d 130 (R.I.1979) (timeliness and procedural posture of motions under Rule 12)