State v. Pallister

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed William Pallister’s convictions and sentence following his nolo contendere pleas to two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. The court held that the challenge to the sentencing court’s refusal to impose home confinement was not properly reviewable on direct appeal absent extraordinary circumstances, and that the imposed sentence was within the negotiated and statutory limits.

Holdings

1. A challenge to the validity or legality of a sentence ordinarily is not reviewable on direct appeal; the proper procedure for sentence review begins in the Superior Court under Rule 35 unless extraordinary circumstances are shown.
2. Pallister failed to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting direct appellate review of his sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court could review on direct appeal the trial justice's refusal to impose probation with home confinement as a condition.
2. Whether extraordinary circumstances warranted direct appellate review of Pallister's sentence.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was within the plea agreement, statutory limits, and applicable Superior Court sentencing benchmarks.

Disposition

affirmed