No. 10-425 State v. Giulio Lancello (show cause)
No. 10-333 Gary Tassone v. State (show cause)
No. 10-270 State v. Jerry Lee Steele (show cause)
No. 10-249 State v. Windell McRae (show cause)
No. 10-235 State v. Jaimeson Rushlow (show cause)
No. 10-299 State v. Timothy Scanlon (show cause)
No. 10-228 Gerald Brown v. State (show cause)
No. 10-225 State v. Geronimo Cosme (full briefing)
No. 10-223 State v. Paul Kieltyka (full briefing)
No. 10-222 State v. Joseph Malo (show cause)
No. 10-218 Randy Anderson v. State (show cause)
No. 10-205 Wesley Spratt v. State (show cause)
No. 10-169 State/City of Prov. v. Troy Auger (full briefing)
No. 10-126 State v. Chhoy Hak (show cause)
The defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault and two counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. Defendant appeals from a Superior Court order denying his motion to reduce sentence, arguing that the trial justice failed to take into account the circumstances surrounding defendant’s status as a Cambodian refugee in imposing sentence and in denying his motion to reduce sentence.
No. 10-121 State v. Kimberly St. Michel (full briefing)
No. 10-109 State v. Edward Gordon (show cause)
No. 10-102 State v. Kayborn Brown (full briefing)
No. 10-97 State v. Lewis Quattrucci (show cause)
No. 10-96 State v. John Lomba (full briefing)
Nos. 10-70, State v. Anderson Price (full briefing)
No. 10-50 State v. Linda Diamante (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a decision denying her motion to seal the records pertaining to a felony assault charge from 1994 dismissed by the state.
No. 10-41 State v. Shelton Smalls (show cause)
The state appeals from a Superior Court order requiring the state to turn over to the defendant the cell phone numbers and service providers of police officers who were involved in the defendant’s arrest. The state claims that the information to be provided may not lead to useful data, and that the release of this information may jeopardize the safety of police officers. In addition, the state argues that the evidence in question is not exculpatory.
No. 10-30 State v. Roy Diefenderfer (show cause)
Defendant appeals from a hearing justice’s denial of his Rule 35 motion to reduce sentence. On appeal, defendant argues that the hearing justice, who was not the trial justice at defendant’s original sentencing hearing, applied the wrong standard when considering defendant’s motion to reduce.
No. 10-15 Nicole Tarzia v. State (full briefing)
No. 09-383 State v. Ronald Barkmeyer (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court order denying his motion to reduce sentence. The defendant argues that the hearing judge erred in determining that the defendant’s work history at the ACI had no bearing on the defendant’s motion to reduce sentence. The defendant also contends that the hearing judge erred in implying that the defendant should have admitted his guilt in order to pursue sex offender treatment.
No. 09-380 State v. Jose Viera (full briefing)
No. 09-355 George Giusti v. State (show cause)
Before the Court is plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants on July 1, 2009 in this medical malpractice case. The judgment followed an order granting defendants’ motions in limine to exclude plaintiff’s proposed expert nurse witnesses, based upon the finding by the trial court that the nurses were not qualified to express opinions on the issue of the standard of care owed by the defendants in this case. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the trial justice erred in excluding the witnesses and dismissing the complaint, arguing that the expert nurse witnesses were qualified to testify with respect to plaintiff’s nursing negligence and respondeat superior claims – claims which, plaintiff argues, were erroneously disregarded by the trial justice.
No. 09-344 Kenneth Rice v. State (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. The defendant bases his petition upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
No. 09-343 State v. George Bouffard (show cause)
No. 09-336 State v. Carlos Jimenez (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on two counts of first-degree sexual assault for which he was sentenced to 25 years, 9 years to serve, 16 years suspended, concurrent on each count, entered after a jury trial in 2009. On appeal he challenges the denial of his motion to suppress his statements to the police, the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on count 1, and the denial of his motion for a new trial.
Nos. 09-302, State v. Adrian Shepard (show cause)
No. 09-292 State v. David Dubois (full briefing)
No. 09-282 State v. Leon Stansell (show cause)
No. 09-276 State v. Emmanuel Karngar (show cause)
Nos. 09-250, State v. Charles Randall (show cause)
No. 09-246 State v. Kenneth Viveiros (full briefing)
No. 09-193 State v. Nelson Rolon (full briefing)
No. 09-173 Alfred Bishop v. State (court conference)
No. 09-149 State v. Raquel Figuero (full briefing)
No. 09-147 Hector Jaiman v. State (full briefing)
No. 09-135 Theodore Chapdeline v. State (full briefing)
No. 09-110 State v. Heriberto Rosario (full briefing)
No. 09-83 State v. Jeffrey Alston (full briefing)
No. 09-31 State v. John Kluth (full briefing)
No. 09-5 State v. T. Jackson McDonald (full briefing)
No. 08-51 State v. Jeffrey Moten (full briefing)
No. 07-290 State v. DeWeldon (show cause)
The petitioner appeals pro se from the denial of his application for postconviction relief. The petitioner contends that newly discovered evidence warrants vacating his conviction for third degree sexual assault. He also contends that his conviction should be vacated because he was not informed of the possibility that he could face civil commitment in the state of Massachusetts.
No. 07-195 Brian Dennis v. State (show cause)
The appellant, Brian D. Dennis, appeals from a Superior Court order upholding a determination by the Sex Offender Board of Review classifying him as a level three sexual offender. The appellant claims that objective tests warranted a lower classification, and that the board ignored evidence and acted arbitrarily in finding him to be at high risk of re-offending.
No. 06-98 Kyle Campbell v. AT Wall (full briefing)