State v. Thomas Mosley, 173 A.3d 872

In 2010 Mosley pled nolo contendere to possession with intent to deliver and was sentenced to 8 years, with 1 year to serve and 7 years suspended on probation.
In July and September 2015 the State filed probation-violation reports after Mosley was charged in connection with the murder of Yusef A’Vant and with obstruction based on recorded phone calls he made from the ACI.
Two September 8, 2015 recorded calls show Mosley asking third parties to call Rithy Suon (mother of his child and a key prosecution witness), urging her to stop talking to police, get a lawyer, come visit him, and ‘‘be on his side.’’
Suon testified that shortly after Mosley’s arrest she spoke to police and relayed incriminating statements Mosley had made; the hearing judge found her highly credible.
At a combined probation-violation/bail hearing the trial justice concluded, based on the totality of the calls and credibility findings, that Mosley sought to influence a witness and thus failed to "keep the peace and be of good behavior."
The trial justice revoked Mosley’s probation and executed six of the seven suspended years; Mosley appealed, arguing (1) the violation finding was arbitrary and (2) the six-year execution was excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mosley)	Held
Whether recordings show Mosley violated probation by failing to keep the peace / being of good behavior	Calls show Mosley intended to influence/quiet a key witness and obstruct the investigation	Calls reflect a father seeking contact with his child; intent to influence is not proved	Court upheld violation: reasonable to credit State’s interpretation and Suon’s credibility; not arbitrary or capricious
Whether executing six of seven suspended years was an abuse of discretion	Trial justice permissibly considered nature of original offense and conduct that triggered violation; broad sentencing discretion	Six years is excessive; punishment should be closer to length tied to the triggering offense (3–4 years)	Court affirmed: trial justice did not rely solely on triggering offense and acted within broad discretion to execute portion of suspended sentence

State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954 (R.I. 2005) (State must prove probation breach to reasonable satisfaction)
State v. Hazard, 68 A.3d 479 (R.I. 2013) (purpose of probation-violation hearing is to determine whether conditions were violated)
State v. Washington, 42 A.3d 1265 (R.I. 2012) (trial justice assesses witness credibility at violation hearing)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I. 2008) (appellate court will not overturn credibility decisions if trial justice gave plausible reasons)
State v. Tetreault, 973 A.2d 489 (R.I. 2009) (review of probation-violation finding limited to whether trial justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously)
State v. McKinnon-Conneally, 101 A.3d 875 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice has wide discretion when executing suspended sentence; may consider nature of original offense and triggering conduct)
State v. Roberts, 59 A.3d 693 (R.I. 2013) (appellate review of executed suspended sentence is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Parson, 844 A.2d 178 (R.I. 2004) (explaining the exercised portion of suspended sentence hangs over probationer as consequence of misconduct)