State v. Santos
Citation | 870 A.2d 1029 |
Decision Date | 16 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 2001-516-C.A.,2001-516-C.A. |
Parties | STATE v. Idalio Fernandes SANTOS. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Christopher R. Bush, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Janice M. Weisfeld, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.
At issue in this case is whether a person convicted of sexual assault and incarcerated before July 1, 1992, but released after that date, was required to register as a sexual offender pursuant to the registration statute that was in existence at the time of the prisoner's release (viz., G.L.1956 § 11-37-16 ( )).1 The defendant, Idalio Fernandes Santos, maintains that, because he was convicted before § 11-37-16 went into effect, he was under no duty to register. Accordingly, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Duty to Register." The state disputes this argument and maintains that, because Santos was released after July 1, 1992, he is required to register as a sexual offender.
On May 9, 1990, defendant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault.2 He was sentenced to serve a thirty-year term of imprisonment at the Adult Correctional Institutions, with fifteen of those years being suspended with probation. After serving a portion of his sentence, defendant was scheduled to be released on parole. Before his proposed release date of January 24, 2001, defendant was given notice that he had a duty to register as a sexual offender pursuant to § 11-37-16 and § 11-37.1-18.3 The defendant complied with the mandate implicit in that notice, but then he subsequently filed a "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Duty to Register."4
In the memorandum of law filed in support of his motion, defendant asserted that, by its explicit terms, § 11-37-16(a) (entitled "Duty to register") imposes the registration duty only upon those who were convicted of sexual assault after July 1, 1992. Accordingly, he maintains that he is not required to register because he was convicted before that date.
The state countered that defendant is required to register pursuant to the next subsection of the statute, § 11-37-16(b) ( ), because, under that subsection, sexual offenders who are released after July 1, 1992, (as Santos was) must be informed of their duty to register.
After considering the submissions of the parties, the motion justice denied defendant's motion. He based his decision on his understanding of the meaning and scope of § 11-37-16(b). He summarized his thinking as follows:
The defendant appealed, and the parties appeared before this Court on May 13, 2003, to show cause why the case should not be summarily decided. Because the Court was evenly divided, the appeal was denied and dismissed. The defendant then petitioned for reargument and reconsideration before the full Court pursuant to Article I, Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted the petition, and the full Court has now carefully considered the contentions of the parties and concludes that the appeal should be sustained.
When faced with questions of statutory interpretation, this Court approaches the matter on a de novo basis. Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associates, 763 A.2d 1005, 1007 (R.I.2001) (); see also Keystone Elevator Co. v. Johnson & Wales University, 850 A.2d 912, 918 (R.I.2004)
; In re Abby D., 839 A.2d 1222, 1224 (R.I.2004); Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421, 423 (R.I.2002).
Santos asserts that the trial justice misinterpreted the plain meaning of the language contained in the fairly complex statutory scheme that is set forth in § 11-37-16. He maintains that § 11-37-16(a) specifies the classes of individuals who have a duty to register as sexual offenders and that § 11-37-16(b) merely creates certain ministerial duties by requiring certain specified officers to inform those individuals who have a duty to register of the existence of that duty.
We begin our consideration of the pertinent statutory language with a restatement of some basic principles.
As we have often noted, "[i]t is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings." Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I.1996); see also Keystone Elevator Co., 850 A.2d at 918; Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co., 600 A.2d 722, 724 (R.I.1991).5 It is similarly well established that "when we examine an unambiguous statute, `there is no room for statutory construction and we must apply the statute as written.'" State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251, 253 (R.I.1998) (quoting In re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194, 1197 (R.I.1994)); see also In re Abby D., 839 A.2d at 1224
The plain statutory language is the best indicator of legislative intent. Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426, 431 (R.I.2003) () ; see also Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 490, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)
(); Hathaway v. Hathaway, 52 R.I. 39, 40, 156 A. 800, 801 (1931) ("" ) (quoting State v. Duggan, 15 R.I. 403, 409, 6 A. 787, 788 (1886)).
Moreover, in approaching a statute, it is axiomatic that "this Court will not broaden statutory provisions by judicial interpretation unless such interpretation is necessary and appropriate in carrying out the clear intent or defining the terms of the statute." Simeone v. Charron, 762 A.2d 442, 448-49 (R.I.2000).
These venerable principles of statutory interpretation have guided our approach to this case.
It is undisputed that, by virtue of an explicit savings clause (discussed in footnote 1, supra), § 11-37-16 is applicable to the instant case. The most pertinent portions of § 11-37-16 provide as follows:
It seems clear to us that § 11-37-16(a) defines the universe of those who were, or are, under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. City of Providence v. Auger
...of the important principle that “[t]he plain statutory language is the best indicator of legislative intent.” See State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029, 1032 (R.I.2005); see also Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426, 431 (R.I.2003); Little v. Conflict of Interest Commission, 121 R.I.......
-
State v. Germane
...statute will be literally construed." Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426, 431 (R.I.2003); see also State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029, 1032 (R.I.2005); State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 516 (R.I.2004). "It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambigu......
-
McKenna v. Williams
...and does not lead to an absurd result) makes inquiry into the intent of the legislators unnecessary. See, e.g., State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029, 1032 (R.I.2005) ("The plain statutory language is the best indicator of legislative intent."); Little v. Conflict of Interest Commission of Rhode I......
-
Williams v. Stoddard
...there is no room for statutory construction and [this Court] must apply the statute as written." Id.; see also State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029, 1032 (R.I. 2005) ("The plain statutory language is the best indicator of legislative intent."). Nonetheless, the Court's "interpretation of an ambig......