State v. Sifuentes

• Decision Date: 10 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009-75-M.P.,2009-75-M.P.
• Citation: 996 A.2d 1130
• Parties: STATEv.Rudy SIFUENTES.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

996 A.2d 1130

STATEv.Rudy SIFUENTES.

No. 2009-75-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 10, 2010.

Aaron L. Weisman, Department of Attorney General, for Plaintiff.

Susan B. Iannitelli, Esq., for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON for the Court.

The petitioner, Rudy Sifuentes, having previously been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, has petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. Citing the provisions of G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-5, Mr. Sifuentes requests that this Court (1) undertake a review of his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and (2) modify his sentence so as to allow for the possibility of parole.

Although this Court is of the view that Mr. Sifuentes has waived his right to have this Court engage in such a statutorily authorized review due to the fact that he did not seek review under § 12-19.2-5 in either of his two earlier appeals to this Court or in his more recent application for postconviction relief, we have nonetheless opted to undertake a review of his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we have concluded that petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was entirely appropriate and should be ratified by us.

IFacts and Travel

AThe Factual Background

The factual background of this case has been described at length in two previous decisions of this Court- viz., State v. Sifuentes, 649 A.2d 500 (R.I.1994) ( Sifuentes I ) and State v. Sifuentes, 667 A.2d 791 (R.I.1995) ( Sifuentes II ). For the sake of brevity, in this opinion we shall summarize only the facts relevant to the instant case.

On May 23, 1990, the Providence police discovered the body of Kevin Greenhalgh, which was described as having been “brutally slashed.” Sifuentes I, 649 A.2d at 501. The medical examiner found that Mr. Greenhalgh's death was the result of “loss of blood that was due primarily to a wound in the neck.” Id. In July of 1990, Mr. Sifuentes and one Donald Brown were both charged with the murder of Mr. Greenhalgh. Id. Testimony elicited at trial revealed that Mr. Sifuentes and Mr. Brown had come to believe that the victim had “snitched” on Mr. Brown in prison. Id. The testimony reflects that their belief was the motive for the murder. See id. From March 31 through April 3, 1992, Mr. Sifuentes was tried by a jury in the Providence County Superior Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury expressly found Mr. Sifuentes “guilty of first-degree murder in a manner involving torture and aggravated battery.” Id. On June 26, 1992, the trial justice sentenced Mr. Sifuentes to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Id.

BThe Direct Appeal

Mr. Sifuentes appealed his conviction of first-degree murder to this Court. Sifuentes I, 649 A.2d at 501. In that direct appeal, Mr. Sifuentes raised two issues. Id. at 502-03. His first contention on appeal was that the trial justice erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to inquire, during his cross-examination of a prosecution witness, as to whether the witness was aware of the penalty associated with first-degree child molestation (a crime with which that witness was charged at that time). Id. at 502. His second contention on appeal was that the trial justice erred in permitting Mr. Brown (who had previously pled guilty to first-degree murder with respect to the killing of Mr. Greenhalgh) to be called as a witness. Id. at 503. When called to testify, Mr. Brown refused to answer the question posed to him. Id. In its decision, this Court held that Mr. Sifuentes' first argument had “no merit;” the Court stated that Mr. Sifuentes was “afforded an adequate opportunity to cross-examine” the witness. Id. As to Mr. Sifuentes' second contention (concerning the testimony of Mr. Brown), the Court held that the issue had not been properly preserved; the Court added that, even if it had been properly preserved, Mr. Sifuentes' argument in that regard was “meritless.” Id. The Court accordingly denied Mr. Sifuentes' appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction of first-degree murder. Id.

CThe Appeal from the Denial of Petitioner's Rule 35 Motion

In 1995, Mr. Sifuentes again sought 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 with the possibility of parole. Id. He contended that his sentence was “grossly disproportionate” to the sentence meted out to Mr. Brown, who had pled guilty to the same murder. Id.² Addressing these contentions, this Court stated that it was clear that “the trial justice was mindful of the barbaric, gruesome nature of the crime and was equally mindful that the defendant had failed to accept responsibility and [had failed] to express remorse for that crime.” Id. The Court then held that Mr. Sifuentes had “failed to establish that the trial justice abused his discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reduce his sentence.” Id. The Court accordingly affirmed the order denying the Rule 35 motion and denied and dismissed Mr. Sifuentes' appeal. Id.

DThe Denial of Petitioner's Postconviction Relief Application

Subsequent to this Court's decision with respect to his appeal from the denial of his Rule 35 motion, Mr. Sifuentes filed a pro se application for postconviction relief in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1. ³ In that application, he alleged that his trial counsel had not provided him with effective assistance and that the trial court had committed several errors.⁴ A hearing was held on August 1, 2006 with respect to his application; at the conclusion of that hearing, the hearing justice denied Mr. Sifuentes' application for postconviction relief.⁵

EThe Instant Petition for Certiorari

On February 10, 2009, Mr. Sifuentes filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, the subject of which constitutes the matter presently before this Court. In his petition, Mr. Sifuentes has requested that this Court undertake a review of his sentence of life without the possibility of parole pursuant to § 12-19.2-5. In granting the petition for a writ of certiorari (over the objection of the state), this Court indicated that its review would be limited to two questions: (1) whether Mr. Sifuentes, “in light of his failure to raise the issue in prior appellate proceedings in this case, should be deemed to have waived his § 12-19.2-5 right to this Court's review of * * * his life-without-parole sentence;” and (2) “whether, if such right is deemed not to have been waived, the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

IIAnalysis

AProcedural Bar and Waiver

Section 12-19.2-5 provides a mechanism whereby a person sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may have his or her sentence reviewed by this Court. That statute provides as follows:

“The defendant shall have the right to appeal a sentence of life imprisonment without parole to the [S]upreme [C]ourt of the state in accordance with the applicable rules of court. In considering an appeal of a sentence, the [C]ourt, after review of the transcript of the proceedings below, may, in its discretion, ratify the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment without parole or may reduce the sentence to life imprisonment.” Id.

Since the enactment in 1984 of the just-quoted statute concerning appeals from sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, there have been numerous defendants who, invoking said statute, have sought this Court's review of their sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, it is noteworthy that, in virtually all ⁶ of the previous cases decided by this Court in which a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was challenged, the defendants have raised in their direct appeal their right to § 12-19.2-5 review by this Court.⁷ The clear language of § 12-19.2-5 leads us ineluctably to the conclusion that, although one who has been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole has the right to a review by this Court of that sentence in the manner set forth in the statute, such review by no means occurs automatically; rather, the right to such review must be invoked by the defendant “in accordance with the applicable rules of [the Supreme Court].” Section 12-19.2-5.

Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “Errors not claimed, questions not raised and points not made ordinarily will be treated as waived and not be considered by the Court.” See Stebbins v. Wells, 818 A.2d 711, 720 (R.I.2003) (stating that a party's failure “to brief a particular issue on appeal results in a waiver of that issue” and that the issue is considered waived “both for purposes of the appeal at issue, and throughout any future proceedings after the case is remanded”). We therefore conclude that, by not raising § 12-19.2-5 in his prior appeals to this Court,⁸ he has waived his right to such review.⁹

BReview of the Sentence of Life Imprisonment without the Possibility of Parole

1. Applicable Statutes and the Trial Court's Sentence

In spite of our conclusion that Mr. Sifuentes has waived his right to a review of the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole pursuant to § 12-19.2-5, we have nonetheless chosen to undertake a review of his sentence. The sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the harshest sentence that can be imposed in this state.¹⁰ Taking into account the severity of such a sentence and being mindful that we have no legal obligation to...