Monteiro v. State

• Decision Date: 17 May 2023
• Docket Number: C. A. PM-2023-00921
• Parties: MARIO MONTEIRO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Respondent.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

1

MARIO MONTEIRO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Respondent.

C. A. No. PM-2023-00921

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence

May 17, 2023

For Plaintiff: Sonja L. Doyoe, Esq.

Lisa S. Holley, Esq.

Lynette J. Labinger, Esq.

For Defendant: Judy Davis, Esq.

DECISION

NUGENT, J.

Before this Court are the State and Petitioner Mario Monteiro's (Petitioner) cross-motions for summary disposition of Petitioner's Application for Post-Conviction Relief challenging his consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder and discharge of a firearm with death resulting committed when he was seventeen years old in 2001. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1.

I

Facts &Travel

A Petitioner's Post-Conviction Relief Application

On February 24, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Application for Post-Conviction Relief. (See generally Application for Post-Conviction Relief (Application) (setting forth essential claim).) Petitioner directly appealed his convictions to our Supreme Court, which affirmed those convictions, State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2007); from this opinion, the Court draws the following summary of the pertinent facts of Petitioner's criminal convictions, which are not in dispute.

B Facts Underlying Petitioner's Criminal Convictions

In the early morning of July 3, 2001, a gang-related conflict culminated in the tragic shooting death of an innocent bystander, one Rom Peov (Peov) in the city of Providence Rhode Island. Monteiro, 924 A.2d at 788. The Providence Police identified two suspects: Petitioner and Fidel DelPino (DelPino), each a member of the "Providence Street Boyz," a Providence-area street gang. Id. at 787-88.^[1] On October 11, 2001, Petitioner was arrested at home pursuant to an arrest warrant. Id. at 788. Petitioner was advised of his rights and with his guardian present, the police questioned him about his involvement in Mr. Peov's death. Id. at 789.

Petitioner gave a statement to police wherein he admitted to being at the scene of the murder and he admitted to firing the murder weapon earlier in the day in a skirmish with Rocky Sok, a rival Providence gang member. Id. However, he placed the weapon in Mr. DelPino's hand at the time of the murder. Id.

Subsequently, the grand jury returned a twenty-eight-count indictment against Petitioner. Id. After trial, the jury convicted Petitioner of nine counts in the indictment. Id. The trial justice denied Petitioner's motion for a new trial and then sentenced him. Id. Most importantly for the Court's analysis, Petitioner was sentenced to two mandatory consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for first-degree murder and for using a firearm resulting in death.^[2] Id.

C Legislative Changes to Determination of Parole Eligibility

On July 6, 2021, the General Assembly enacted (as part of its annual budget appropriation) an amendment (the Juvenile Offender Parole Act) to G.L. 1956 § 13-8-13 to add the following Subsection (e):

"Any person sentenced for any offense committed prior to his or her twenty-second birthday, other than a person serving life without parole, shall be eligible for parole review and a parole permit may be issued after the person has served no fewer than twenty (20) years' imprisonment unless the person is entitled to earlier parole eligibility pursuant to any other provisions of law. This subsection shall be given prospective and retroactive effect for all offenses occurring on or after January 1, 1991."^[3] P.L. 2021 ch. 162, Art. 13, § 3 (emphasis added).

D

Petitioner's Parole Eligibility Status Prior to Enactment of Subsection (e)

Petitioner is currently being held by the State of Rhode Island in the custody of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC); he is serving his sentence of confinement at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) located in Cranston, Rhode Island. (Application ¶¶ 1-3; Answer ¶¶ 1-3 (admitting the allegations).) It is uncontested that, prior to the enactment of Subsection (e), Petitioner had completed serving all five of his ten-year concurrent sentences. (Application ¶¶ 11-12; Answer ¶¶ 11-12 (admitting the allegations).) It is also uncontested that Petitioner's non-jail sentences (suspended sentence of ten years and two consecutive ten-year probation terms "are not material to a determination of initial parole eligibility date." (Application ¶ 13, Answer ¶ 13 (admitting the allegation).) Petitioner contends that the only remaining operative sentences are the two consecutive life sentences. (Application ¶ 14.) Petitioner contends and the State does not dispute that under the law prior to the enactment of Subsection (e), Petitioner would have initially become "eligible to be considered for parole to the community when he has served thirty years (fifteen on each life sentence), in or about November 2031." (Application ¶ 22; Answer ¶ 22 (admitting the allegation).)

Petitioner alleges:

"Upon information and belief, at some point after 2017, and without notice to [Petitioner], RIDOC decided to alter its internal method of calculating parole eligibility date for inmates serving more than one sentence, where one of the sentences was for life, apparently by 'disaggregating' sentences so as to determine an initial 'parole eligibility date' for the 'primary' or 'controlling' life sentence, and thereby requiring an inmate with consecutive sentences to first be paroled from the controlling life sentence to serve the consecutive sentence, with no possibility of release from incarceration until the inmate has been approved for parole at least twice."

"Under this altered method of calculating parole eligibility dates, an inmate serving a life sentence and an additional consecutive sentence would first have to be granted parole on the life sentence, and then be paroled to his consecutive sentence. In order to be considered for release-from physical custody of RIDOC, the inmate paroled from their life sentence would then be required to serve the minimum eligibility period of the consecutive sentence before again seeking parole."

"Upon information and belief, there has been no material change to the Rhode Island statutes governing parole eligibility, or their interpretation by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, authorizing or justifying this unilateral and arbitrary action by RIDOC." (Application ¶¶ 25-28.)

Petitioner contends that the "Rhode Island Superior Court has previously addressed and rejected the RIDOC decision to disaggregate life and consecutive term sentences in McMaugh v. State, PM-2017-05673; Eddie Martinez v. State, PM-2020-05568; and Francisco Martinez v. State, PM-2021-03544 (petition for certiorari granted, SU-2021-0292-MP)[.]" (Application ¶ 28.)

E

Petitioner's Parole Eligibility Status Following Enactment of Subsection (e)

With respect to the effect of the enactment of Subsection (e) on Petitioner's parole eligibility status, Petitioner alleges that he came before the Parole Board (Parole Board or Board) on December 15, 2021 to consider his eligibility for parole. (Application ¶ 46; Answer ¶ 46 (admitting the allegation).) In the minutes from the December 15, 2021 meeting,^[4] the Board unanimously voted to grant parole to Petitioner stating:

"We understand that he has a mandatory consecutive life sentence and that there is an existing legal debate in court on the application of this consecutive term - whether it is aggregated and consumed by the first life sentence eligibility or whether he has yet to and must serve this next term. Board members agree this debate is outside the statutory authority of the Parole Board and we must leave this to the Department of Corrections to apply and/or the Court to decide. For our part, the Board votes unanimously to parole [Petitioner] from his first life sentence. If it is determined that he must serve another consecutive life term then the effective parole release date shall be the date of this decision (December 15, 2021). If it is determined that he is eligible for immediate release to the community, then the effective parole release date shall be no sooner than December 2022. The reason for the staggered release (if to the community) is the Board believes there should be some time for [Petitioner] to transition to a lower security and preparation for eventual release. Upon his eventual release to the community, special conditions of parole shall include: successful completion of the 9 Yards transitional program with GPS for a minimum of six months." (Application, Ex. 6 attached thereto at 2-3 (Parole Board Minutes of Oct. 19, 2022).)

Petitioner was given a "paper" parole on December 22, 2021; that is, he was paroled to begin serving his next consecutive life sentence, and he was given an "initial parole hearing" date of January 1, 2037 ("approximately fifteen additional years from his 'parole' to the consecutive sentence and more than thirty-five years after his original commit date of November 29, 2001"). (See Application ¶ 33.)

The Parole Board, in unanimously granting him parole from his first life sentence took into account that Petitioner has served as a model of reform to his fellow inmates by availing himself of some of the many rehabilitative programs offered by the RIDOC. Through his participation in the garden time program, he has an offer for full-time employment upon his release to the community. (Hr'g Tr., Apr. 12, 2023.) Additionally, Petitioner has addressed his temper and impulsivity by completing an anger management and a mindfulness program. Id. Over his two decades inside the ACI, Petitioner has fundamentally reformed himself from a violent teenage thug into a mentor of young prisoners, an anti-gang advocate, the valedictorian of the ACI's medium security gang step-down...