(a) Whenever any person shall be arraigned before the district court or superior court
and shall plead nolo contendere, and the court places the person on probation pursuant
to § 12-18-1, then upon the completion of the probationary period, and absent a violation of the
terms of the probation, the plea and probation shall not constitute a conviction for
any purpose. Evidence of a plea of nolo contendere followed by a period of probation,
completed without violation of the terms of the probation, may not be introduced in
any court proceeding, except that records may be furnished to a sentencing court following
the conviction of an individual for a crime committed subsequent to the successful
completion of probation on the prior offense.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who is sentenced to serve a term in the
adult correctional institutions or who is given a suspended or deferred sentence in
addition to probation.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons making applications for
the purchase of a firearm, or to persons making applications for permission to carry
a concealable weapon, if the crime for which the plea was entered was a crime of violence
as defined in § 11-47-2 or the plea was entered pursuant to chapter 28 of title 21. In these cases a plea of nolo contendere followed by probation shall be deemed a
conviction for the purposes stated in this subsection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
State v. Briggs, 934 A.2d 811 (R.I. 2007).
State v. Briggs, 934 A.2d 811 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Additionally, both parties cite First Circuit cases that interpreted G.L. 1956 § 12-18-3 14 to define conviction for the purposes of federal sentencing.”
State v. Doris E. Poulin, 66 A.3d 419 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 6× “Laws § 12-1-12 (2012) when the moving party has not been convicted of a felony as defined by R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3 (2012).” 4 The defendant then advances several arguments in support of her contentions, some of which we need not address.”
United States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154 (1st Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3. Thus, even assuming that Lindia was not placed on probation, the controlling fact is that he was given a deferred sentence, thus rendering the benefits of § 12-18-3(a) inapplicable.”
Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011).
“” General Laws 1956 § 12-18-3(a) provides: "Whenever any person shall be arraigned before the district court or superior court and shall plead nolo contendere, and the court places the person on probation pursu *76 ant to § 12-18-1, then upon the completion of the probationary…”
State v. Alejo, 723 A.2d 762 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The defendant McCreadie’s contention that his plea of nolo contendere to the felony charge against him followed by a sentence of probation is not a conviction pursuant to G.L.1956 § 12-18-3 and that he is entitled to the expungement of the records of the criminal information in…”
Hill v. Gill, 703 F. Supp. 1034 (D.R.I. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Consequently, her status appears to be governed by R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3 (Supp.1981) which provides that: “Whenever any person .”
In re McEnaney, 718 A.2d 920 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 3× “We note that G.L.1956 § 12-18-3 provides that upon completion of a probationary period subsequent to a nolo contendere plea, the plea and probation shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose.”
Matter of Mcenaney, 718 A.2d 920 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 3× “We note that G.L.1956 § 12-18-3 provides that upon completion of a probationary period subsequent to a nolo contendere plea, the plea and probation shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose.”
State v. Gervais, 607 A.2d 881 (R.I. 1992).
“*882 A plea of nolo contendere and a successfully served term of probation, while not constituting a conviction under § 12-18-3, remains as a record and does not constitute exoneration of that charge.”
Carew v. Centracchio, 17 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.R.I. 1998).
· cites it 3× “In support of this contention, he relies on RIGL § 12-18-3. That statute “provides for a special circumstance in which a nolo contendere plea and successful completion of probation will not constitute a conviction .”
Ricci v. Town of Smithfield (D.R.I. 2023).
· cites it 2× “G.L. § 12-18-3. The filing statute goes further: the passage of a successful year means that “[n]o criminal record shall result.”
United States v. Cadden, 98 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.R.I. 2000).
· cites it 4× “The facts of Gardner and Carew , and the legal arguments made in those cases as well as the case at bar, suggest that this issue is one of great significance, and that there exist common misconceptions in the legal community (both civil and criminal) as to the interplay between…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3(a) — 6 cases
State v. Doris E. Poulin, 66 A.3d 419 (R.I. 2013).
“Laws § 12-1-12 (2012) when the moving party has not been convicted of a felony as defined by R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3 (2012).” 4 The defendant then advances several arguments in support of her contentions, some of which we need not address.”
Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011).
“” General Laws 1956 § 12-18-3(a) provides: "Whenever any person shall be arraigned before the district court or superior court and shall plead nolo contendere, and the court places the person on probation pursu *76 ant to § 12-18-1, then upon the completion of the probationary…”
United States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154 (1st Cir. 1996).
“See R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-18-3. Thus, even assuming that Lindia was not placed on probation, the controlling fact is that he was given a deferred sentence, thus rendering the benefits of § 12-18-3(a) inapplicable.”
State v. Briggs, 934 A.2d 811 (R.I. 2007).
“Additionally, both parties cite First Circuit cases that interpreted G.L. 1956 § 12-18-3 14 to define conviction for the purposes of federal sentencing.”
In re McEnaney, 718 A.2d 920 (R.I. 1998).
“We note that G.L.1956 § 12-18-3 provides that upon completion of a probationary period subsequent to a nolo contendere plea, the plea and probation shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.