Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment finding Gabriel Seamans in violation of probation based on sexual conduct with a fifteen-year-old girl. The court held that his subsequent nolo contendere plea to the underlying sexual-assault offense rendered his appeal moot and, alternatively, that the probation-violation finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Seamans's intervening nolo contendere plea to the criminal offense arising from the same conduct rendered his appeal from the probation-violation judgment moot.
- Whether the Superior Court hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a probation violation based on the evidence and credibility determinations.
Holdings
- A defendant's nolo contendere plea to the criminal offense arising from the same conduct underlying a probation violation renders the appeal from the probation-violation judgment moot because no live controversy remains concerning whether the defendant engaged in that conduct.
- The hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a probation violation where the State's evidence was reasonably satisfactory and the finding rested on a rational credibility determination.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we conclude that because defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to the very offense that defendant is disputing in his probation violation appeal, his appeal is moot.” (623)
“Because we concur that the state's evidence was reasonably satisfactory to secure the revocation of the defendant's probation, we hold that the hearing justice acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously.” (624)
Factual background
While on probation, Seamans spent time with a fifteen-year-old girl and engaged in sexual conduct with her in the back seat of a car. The Superior Court credited the girl's testimony and found that Seamans failed to keep the peace and remain of good behavior, violating his probation. While his appeal was pending, Seamans pleaded nolo contendere to third-degree sexual assault based on the same conduct.
Procedural history
Seamans pleaded nolo contendere to second-degree child molestation and later to failure to notify law enforcement of a sex-offender address change. After a probation-violation hearing, the Superior Court found that he had failed to keep the peace and remain of good behavior and ordered him to serve ten and one-half years of his suspended sentence. While the appeal was pending, Seamans pleaded nolo contendere to third-degree sexual assault arising from the same conduct underlying the probation violation. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the record to the Superior Court.
Remand instructions
The record shall be remanded to the Superior Court.