State v. Sifuentes, 95-270-C
| Decision Date | 14 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-270-C,95-270-C |
| Citation | 667 A.2d 791 |
| Parties | STATE v. Rudy SIFUENTES. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This matter came before the Supreme Court on November 8, 1995, pursuant to an order directing the defendant, Rudy Sifuentes, to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant appeals from a Superior Court order denying his motion to reduce sentence. After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues raised by this appeal should be decided at this time.
On July 6, 1990, defendant and one Donald Brown (Brown) were charged with first-degree murder. The defendant stood trial alone, and on April 3, 1992, he was convicted of having committed murder in the first degree in a manner involving torture and aggravated battery. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appealed his conviction to this court, and his conviction was affirmed. State v. Sifuentes, 649 A.2d 500 (R.I.1994). On February 21, 1995, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial justice denied the motion, and an order was entered on May 3, 1995. The defendant filed a timely appeal.
The defendant argues on appeal that the trial justice abused his discretion in refusing to reduce his sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The defendant suggests that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to that given to Brown, who had pleaded guilty to the same murder. The defendant maintains that because he refused the state's offer of a reduced sentence in exchange for a plea, he received a harsher sentence by choosing to proceed to trial.
A motion to reduce a sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency. State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.1994). Decisions on such motions are directed to the sound discretion of the trial justice "and may be granted if the court decides on reflection or on the basis of changed circumstances that the sentence originally imposed was, for any reason, unduly severe." State v. Byrnes, 456 A.2d 742, 744-45 (R.I.1983).
In reviewing a trial court's decision on a Rule 35 motion, this court's scope of review is extremely limited. State v. Gordon, 539 A.2d 528, 529-30 (R.I.1988). This court will interfere with a trial justice's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. State
...`In reviewing a trial court's decision on a Rule 35 motion, this court's scope of review is extremely limited.' State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791, 792 (R.I.1995) (per curiam). `This court will interfere with a trial justice's decision only when the sentence is "manifestly excessive."' Id. (q......
-
State v. Sifuentes
...relief from this Court, this time appealing from the Superior Court's order denying his Rule 35 1 motion to reduce his sentence. Sifuentes II, 667 A.2d at 792. On appeal, he contended that the trial justice erred in declining to grant his motion to reduce his sentence to life imprisonment w......
-
State v. Rivera
...[he could] envision,’ ultimately warranting the ‘harsh’ sentence imposed. We discern no error in this determination.”); State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791, 792 (R.I.1995) (affirming the denial of a motion to reduce a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a first-......
-
State v. Chase
...to justify consecutive sentences. Our review of a trial justice's decision on a Rule 35 motion "is extremely limited," State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791, 792 (R.I.1995), as "[t]his Court has maintained a 'strong policy against interfering with a trial justice's discretion in sentencing matte......