State v. Lubens Bienaime

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgments in consolidated appeals involving Lubens Bienaime’s 1993 second-degree sexual assault conviction and a 2019 probation-violation adjudication. The Court held that the appeal from the 1993 conviction was untimely and declined to treat it as a petition for certiorari. It further held that probation conditions attached when the sentence was pronounced and that the arrest warrant tolled the probationary period, making the 2018 violation notice timely.

Holdings

1. A criminal notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days after entry of the judgment in the Superior Court docket. Because Bienaime did not appeal until July 5, 2018, his appeal from the 1993 conviction was untimely and was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court declined to treat Bienaime's untimely appeal as a petition for certiorari because the twenty-five-year delay was unreasonable and unexplained except by his own absence from the jurisdiction.
3. When a trial justice pronounces a sentence that includes probation, the implied condition that the defendant keep the peace and be of good behavior attaches immediately, even if execution of the incarcerative portion is continued and the defendant is released on bail.
4. The state's Rule 32(f) notice of probation violation was timely because the arrest warrant issued on June 28, 1993, tolled Bienaime's probationary period until he reappeared and the warrant was executed and canceled.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal from the 1993 conviction was timely under Article I, Rule 4(b) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should treat the untimely appeal from the 1993 conviction as a petition for certiorari.
3. Whether probation conditions attached when the trial justice pronounced a sentence that included probation, even though execution of the incarcerative portion was continued and the defendant was released on bail.
4. Whether the state's 2018 notice of probation violation was timely when an arrest warrant issued in 1993 and tolled the probationary period.

Disposition

affirmed