State v. Linde
Decision Date | 06 March 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 2007-49-C.A.,2007-49-C.A. |
Citation | 965 A.2d 415 |
Parties | STATE v. Eddie M. LINDE. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Christopher R. Bush, for Plaintiff.
Catherine Gibran, Providence, for Defendant.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.
This case represents the sixth appellate attack on the constitutional underpinnings of the state's anti-gun-violence statute, G.L. 1956 § 11-47-3.2.1 We decline to reach the merits of the issues before us because, in our judgment, this constitutional challenge is not cognizable in the context of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
This case came before the Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, on an appeal by the defendant, Eddie M. Linde (Linde or defendant), from a Superior Court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35. On May 29, 2002, defendant was convicted on nine counts of a criminal indictment, including second-degree murder and discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence resulting in death. This Court subsequently affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I.2005). The defendant later filed a Rule 35 motion in the Superior Court alleging that the mandatory and consecutive life sentence imposed under § 11-47-3.2—discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence (second-degree murder)—was illegal because, he argued, the statute violated the separation of powers doctrine, deprived him of due process, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and amounted to double jeopardy.2 The trial justice denied the motion, ruling that defendant's constitutional averments could not be pursued under Rule 35.3 The defendant appealed to this Court. We affirm.
Rule 35(a) provides that "[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time." The Reporter's Notes to Rule 35 define an illegal sentence as The defendant argues that the examples listed in the Reporter's Notes are not exclusive and that a sentence imposed pursuant to an unconstitutional statute is illegal under Rule 35.
This Court has defined an illegal sentence "as one that is not authorized by the statute establishing the punishment that may be imposed for the particular crime or crimes." State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132, 143 (R.I.2008) (citing State v. Murray, 788 A.2d 1154, 1155 (R.I.2001) (mem.)). We also have adopted the language in the Reporter's Notes. See State v. Elliott, 899 A.2d 520, 521 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (quoting with approval the definition of an "illegal sentence" in the Reporter's Notes to Rule 35); State v. DeCiantis, 813 A.2d 986, 991 (R.I.2003) (same). But we never have countenanced a challenge to the constitutionality of a penal statute in the context of a Rule 35 motion; nor have we declared that a sentence imposed pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, which is not the case here, is illegal as contemplated by Rule 35 and we decline to do so now.
Instead, in moving under Rule 35, the defendant had the burden of proving that the trial justice's imposition of a mandatory consecutive life sentence was not authorized by § 11-47-3.2. Texieira, 944 A.2d at 143. Subsections (b)(3) and (c) of§ 11-47-3.2 provide:
Therefore, pursuant to this statute, the trial justice was without discretion to impose a sentence other than one for life imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence for second-degree murder. Accordingly, under Rule 35, the defendant's sentence is not illegal.
Because we opine that the defendant's claims could not be asserted via Rule 35, we affirm the order of the Superior Court, to which the papers in this case may be remanded.
1. See Sosa v. State, 949 A.2d 1014, 1016-17 (R.I.2008) (separation of powers); State v. DeJesus, 947 A.2d 873, 884-86 (R.I.2008) (equal protection); State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784, 792-96 (R.I.2007) ( ); State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 647-48 (R.I.2006) (double jeopardy); State v. Rodriguez, 822 A.2d 894, 904-08 (R.I.2003) (double jeopardy).
2. The defendant asserted at oral argument that the only contentions before the Court were his due process and Eighth Amendment challenges to G.L. 1956 § 11-47-3.2. The defendant agreed that his remaining claims have been put to rest. In Monteiro, we held (1) that a defendant's dual convictions for first-degree murder and for using a firearm resulting in death did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of either the state or federal constitutions and (2) that subsections (b)(3) and (c) of § 11-47-3.2, which mandate a consecutive life sentence for a violation thereof, do not violate the separation of powers provision in article 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Monteiro, 924 A.2d at 792-94. See also Feliciano, 901 A.2d at 647-48 ( ); Rodriguez, 822 A.2d at 904-08 (same). We also held in Monteiro that two mandatory and consecutive life sentences imposed under G.L. 1956 § 11-23-2 (first-degree murder) and § 11-47-3.2 did not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in article 1, section 8, of the Rhode Island Constitution. Monteiro, 924 A.2d at 794-96. With respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jaiman v. State
...35(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” See State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415, 416 (R.I.2009). “A ruling on a motion to correct sentence is committed to the sound discretion of the hearing justice, and his or her decisio......
-
State v. Lopez, P1/2014-0822 AG
...v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 647-48 (R.I. 2006) (same); State v. Rodriguez, 822 A.2d 894, 904-08 (R.I. 2003) (same); State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415, 416 n.1 (R.I. 2009) (second degree murder); State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435, 442 (R.I. 2010) (robbery); State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773, 778-81 (R.I. ......
-
State v. Lopez
...Court has held that a defendant may not utilize Rule 35 to advance a constitutional challenge to his sentence. State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415, 417 (R.I. 2009) (Linde II).1 Lopez maintains, however, that Linde II does not apply to his motion and that, even if it does, that case was wrongly dec......
-
Murray v. State
...Application for Post-Conviction Relief in orderthat his request under Rule 35 would not suffer the same fate as in State v. Linde, 965 A.2d 415, 416 n.2 (R.I. 2009) (refusing to reach merits of a constitutional challenge in the context of a Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence). On......