Eric Neufville v. StateState v. Eric Neufville

Excerpt

The defendant, Eric Neufville, appealed the hearing justice's sentencing determination on a probation violation and the denial of a motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the defendant argued that the hearing justice erred in denying the motion for reconsideration because he should not have found the key witness's testimony credible in light of newly presented evidence. As to sentencing, the defendant argued that the hearing justice abused his discretion in removing the suspension from the defendant's sixteen-year sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court first held that the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when he found the key witness's violation hearing testimony credible. As to the motion for reconsideration, the Court treated it as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the motion was improper due to the defendant's untimely filing. The defendant filed the motion more than sixteen months after the violation hearing judgment. However, the Court noted that even if the defendant's motion was properly before it, the hearing justice did not err in denying the motion after taking into account the newly presented evidence. Finally, the Court held that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in sentencing the defendant to sixteen years in prison. The Court held that based upon the defendant's underlying convictions, coupled with the new robbery offense, the hearing justice was within his discretion to impose the sixteen-year sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.