(a) Whenever any person is arraigned before the superior court and pleads guilty or nolo
contendere, he or she may be at any time sentenced by the court; provided, that if
at any time the court formally defers sentencing, then the person and the court shall
enter into a written deferral agreement to be filed with the clerk of the court. When
a court formally defers sentence, the court may only impose sentence up to five (5)
years from and after the date of the written deferral agreement, unless during the
required period, the person shall be declared to have violated the terms and conditions
of the deferment pursuant to subsection (b) in which event the court may impose sentence.
(b) The court may require that the person agreeing to said deferment of sentence shall
not violate any condition of the written deferral agreement. A violation of any condition
set forth by the written deferral agreement shall violate the terms and conditions
of the deferment of sentence and the court may impose a sanction or impose sentence.
The determination of whether a violation has occurred shall be made by the court in
accordance with procedures relating to violation of probation in court rules and §§ 12-19-2 and 12-19-14.
(c) If a person, after the completion of the deferment period is determined by the court
after a hearing to have complied with all of the terms and conditions of the deferral
agreement including, but not limited to, the payment in full of any court-ordered
fines, fees, costs, assessments, and restitution to victims of crime, then the person
shall become immediately eligible for consideration for expungement pursuant to the
provisions of §§ 12-1.3-2 and 12-1.3-3.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Briggs, 934 A.2d 811 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 3× “1956 *813 § 12-19-19? Both the defendants here, James Briggs and Anna M.”
State v. Eileen Morrice, 58 A.3d 156 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 26× “In a companion case decided by this Court today, we held that the amendments to § 12-19-19 enacted by the General Assembly in 2010 (P.”
Johnson v. Mullen, 390 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-19-19. However, the hearing justice felt that if such an obligation existed, Johnson was still not entitled to relief.”
State v. Robalewski, 191 A.2d 148 (R.I. 1963).
· cites it 5× “1956, §12-19-19. A sentence of nine months in the adult correctional institutions was later imposed because of his violation of the agreement.”
State v. Ciarlo, 409 A.2d 1216 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 8× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-19-19 3 would commence to run upon his release from prison; hence the court lacked jurisdiction to violate defendant on the deferred sentence while he was incarcerated.”
United States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154 (1st Cir. 1996).
“R.I.Gen.Laws § 12-19-19 provides, inter alia, that if the court defers sentencing on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, it may actually impose a sentence only within a certain time period unless the defendant is otherwise sentenced to prison during that period, in which case…”
Hazard v. Howard, 290 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1972).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-19-19, and history of section as therein annotated.”
State v. Wright, 202 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 1972).
· cites it 2× “19, § 1051 (Purdon 1964); Rhode IslandR.I.Gen.Laws § 12-19-19 (1969); South CarolinaS.”
Whitman v. Ventetuolo, 781 F. Supp. 95 (D.R.I. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Counts 3 and 5) was deferred pursuant to R.I.Gen.Laws § 12-19-19. 1 In accordance with the provisions of that statute, Whitman and the Rhode Island Attorney General executed a written agreement setting forth the terms upon which sentence was being deférred.”
Flint v. Howard, 291 A.2d 625 (R.I. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Four months later, he was presented to the court for having allegedly been involved in a burglary during his probation.”
State v. Johnson, 349 A.2d 609 (R.I. 1976).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-19-19. 1 More than 5 years later, he was adjudged a violator of that agreement for which he was sentenced on April 10, 1974 to serve a term of 7 years.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-19(a) — 3 cases
State v. Eileen Morrice, 58 A.3d 156 (R.I. 2013).
“In a companion case decided by this Court today, we held that the amendments to § 12-19-19 enacted by the General Assembly in 2010 (P.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-19(b) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-19(c) — 3 cases
State v. Eileen Morrice, 58 A.3d 156 (R.I. 2013).
“In a companion case decided by this Court today, we held that the amendments to § 12-19-19 enacted by the General Assembly in 2010 (P.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-19(e) — 1 case
State v. Eileen Morrice, 58 A.3d 156 (R.I. 2013).
“In a companion case decided by this Court today, we held that the amendments to § 12-19-19 enacted by the General Assembly in 2010 (P.”
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.