Supreme Court

Criminal Case Summaries 2019

2019-205 State v. Dari Max Garcia (full briefing)

The defendant appeals from judgments of conviction on several counts, including first-degree murder. He claims: (1) the removal of a juror was not race-neutral; (2) the trial justice erred in admitting testimony regarding defendant’s statements to an officer guarding him at the hospital; (3) evidence regarding a witness’s drug use should have been admitted; (4) the testimony and conduct of two witnesses and their brother, who was in the gallery, was prejudicial; (5) the trial justice impermissibly aided the prosecution during the questioning of a witness; 6) counts 2 and 5 of the indictment should have been merged; (7) counts 6 and 7 also should have been merged; (8) the prosecutor made prejudicial statements during closing argument; and (9) the sentence imposed amounts to de facto life without parole, without the statutory protections.

2019-388 State v. Louis Sinapi (full briefing)
2019-415

The defendant appeals, in one case, from a conviction for larceny over $1500 in value and from an adjudication of probation violation in the other case. In his criminal appeal, the defendant contends that identification testimony and information on cell phone location should have been suppressed. He claims that testimony as to whether the owner of the vehicle defendant was accused of stealing was in the habit of loaning his car should not have been admitted. He further contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he intended to steal the car. In his probation adjudication, defendant contends that he was erroneously violated and sentenced a second time for the same conduct as an earlier violation. He further contends that the trial justice erred in violating him for drug transactions which were not specified in the violation notice.

2019-398-C.A. State v. Malik Garcia (show cause)

The defendant appeals from a conviction for domestic simple assault and domestic refusal to relinquish a telephone. The defendant contends the trial justice’s restriction of cross-examination of the complaining witness violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the United States constitution and Article I, section 10 of the RI constitution.

2019-396-C.A. State v. James Harris (full briefing)

The defendant appeals from a Superior Court decision finding him to be a violator of a previously suspended sentence. The defendant was ordered to serve six years of a suspended 20-year sentence imposed in 2006. On appeal, the defendant contends that the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden and that the hearing justice failed to make sufficient findings of fact.

2019-68-C.A. State v. Christopher Jimenez (full briefing)

This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction, after a jury-waived trial, on one count of second-degree murder of his infant daughter, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of second-degree child abuse, for which he received a sentence of 15 years, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial judge erred: (1) in denying his motion to suppress a statement given to the Providence police; (2) in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds of vagueness; (3) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (4) in denying his motion for new trial.

2019-432-C.A. State v. Luis Molina (show cause)
2019-450-C.A.

In these consolidated appeals, the defendant appeals from the denial of his motions to dismiss, to recuse, and to reconsider, all of which were orally denied subsequent to a finding of probation violation. The defendant also has three other related appeals pending before the Court, Nos. SU-2020-231-C.A., SU-2020-232-C.A., SU-2020-265-C.A., all arising out of the same underlying probation violation proceedings.

2019-74-C.A. State v. Luis Bienaime (show cause)
2019-371-C.A.

In appeal No. SU-2019-0074-C.A., the defendant is before this Court challenging the denial of his motion for a new trial after a jury found him guilty, in 1993, of second-degree sexual assault in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-37-4. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial judge erred when he allowed a witness to testify about a prior consistent statement made by the complainant under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence; and (2) whether the weight of evidence at trial was sufficient to find him guilty.

In the related and consolidated case No. SU-2019-0371-C.A., the defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment adjudicating him a probation violator and sentencing him to serve three years of a seven-year suspended sentence. He argues that he was not on probation when he failed to appear for execution of his sentence in 1993, because his sentence had not commenced. He does not challenge the factual finding of a violation, which was based on his failure to appear.

2019-215-C.A. Sebastian Atryzek v. State (full briefing)

This case is before the Court on a writ of certiorari. The state of Rhode Island brought this petition and asserts that the hearing judge erred in vacating petitioner’s convictions for failing to register as a sex offender in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 because: (1) there was no dispute that petitioner had a duty to register when he failed to register in 2009 and 2010 and, as a result of his convictions for failing to do so, also had a duty to register in 2012 and 2013; and (2) based on his Massachusetts conviction, petitioner qualifies as an aggravated offender and has a lifetime duty to register under G.L. 1956 § 11-37.1-4.

2019-106-C.A. State v. Antonio Acosta (show cause)

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first degree sexual assault and three counts of second degree child molestation. He argues on appeal that the trial justice erred in denying his new trial motion because he overlooked and misconstrued material evidence and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

2019-324-C.A. State of Rhode Island v. Deric McGuire et. al (full briefing)

These 19 consolidated cases are before the Court on appeal by the state from an order granting the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence obtained as the result of wiretap intercept orders issued by a Superior Court Justice, acting as the Presiding Justice’s designee, pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-3-4. The underlying indictment in these cases named 41 defendants and alleged 424 criminal counts including narcotics, firearms, conspiracy, and other charges that arose out of a state police investigation into various outlaw motorcycle gangs called “Operation Patched Out.”

On appeal, the state alleges that the trial judge erred: (1) in concluding that § 8-3-4 precluded the Presiding Justice from designating the Superior Court Justice to review and approve wiretap applications and in finding that only the senior associate justice had the authority to entertain and approve wiretap applications in the presiding justice’s absence; (2) in concluding that strict compliance with the Wiretap Act, G.L. 1956 § 12-5.1-3, required suppression of evidence obtained using wiretaps authorized by the Superior Court Justice; and (3) in declining to apply the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, as outlined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).

2019-13 State v. Segrain (show cause)

The defendant appeals from an adjudication of probation violation. He argues that the hearing judge erred in sentencing him to nine years for his probation violation. The defendant asserts that the hearing judge erred in basing her sentence on the conduct leading to his violation, rather than the conduct forming the basis for his original conviction.

2019-112 State v. Curtis Maxie (show cause)

The defendant appeals from the denial of his second motion for a new trial in this case involving sexual assault and sex trafficking. He claims that jury instructions could have misled the jury. He also challenges the trial justice’s conclusion that evidence to support counts four and six would have been admitted in any event to support other counts. The defendant argues that the trial justice incorrectly decided that newly available evidence was not material and incorrectly refused to decide whether the basis for his motion was newly available evidence.

2019-80 State v. Brian Brownell (show cause)

The defendant appeals from a judgment of probation violation. He claims that the hearing justice erred because his credibility assessments and his finding of probation violation were arbitrary and capricious.

2019-94 State v. Corey Snead (show cause)

The defendant appeals from an adjudication of probation violation. He argues that the evidence did not demonstrate that he violated the conditions of his probation. The defendant argues that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge him.

2019-28 State v. Ernest Chandler (show cause)

Pro se defendant challenges a decision to deny his motion to vacate an illegal sentence and judgment on the basis that the trial judge did not have authority to impose a violation sentence because there were no conditions imposed on his probation.

2019-192 State v. George Goncalves (show cause)

Defendant from a finding of probation violation. He asserts that the hearing judge acted arbitrarily and capriciously in his finding that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated his probation by failing to keep the peace and be of good behavior.