State v. Roman: Rhode Island Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Automatic Waiver of Rule 35 Sentence-Reduction Motions in Plea Agreements

Introduction

State v. Luis Roman, No. 2024-78-C.A. (R.I. June 11, 2025) presented the Rhode Island Supreme Court with an appeal from a Superior Court order denying a Rule 35 motion to reduce sentence. Luis Roman, having pleaded guilty to eight serious offenses stemming from an alcohol-fueled domestic assault and an attempted murder of a police officer, was sentenced to seventy years with thirty to serve (ten non-parolable). He later moved for leniency under Rule 35, arguing that the sentencing justice (1) relied unduly on an alleged statement that Roman preferred a “shoot-out with police,” and (2) failed to weigh mitigating factors such as diminished capacity from alcohol use.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, but its opinion introduces an important caveat concerning plea-form waivers of the right to seek Rule 35 relief—a procedural issue likely to reverberate in Rhode Island criminal practice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed the denial of Roman’s Rule 35 motion.
It reiterated the “extremely limited” appellate review of sentencing discretion and emphasized the defendant’s burden to prove that a sentence is “without justification” and “grossly disparate.”
Although the Superior Court had cited Roman’s plea-form waiver as an additional ground for denying relief, the Supreme Court expressed “concerns regarding the waiver” and clarified that a mere check-box on a standardized plea form is not automatically dispositive.
The Court ultimately found no abuse of discretion: the sentencing justice considered both aggravating (violent history, danger to law enforcement) and mitigating factors (troubled upbringing, alcoholism) and imposed a sentence below the negotiated cap.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The opinion draws heavily on Rhode Island’s Rule 35 jurisprudence, especially:

State v. Oliveira
State v. Rivera
State v. Mlyniec
State v. Snell
State v. Mendoza
State v. Furtado

These cases crystallize three recurring principles: (a) Rule 35 is “essentially a plea for leniency,” (b) appellate intrusion is warranted only in “rare instances,” and (c) defendants carry a “heavy burden” to show a sentence is unduly severe. By reaffirming these precedents, the Court maintained doctrinal continuity while carving out fresh guidance on waiver.

2. Legal Reasoning

Absence of Transcript. Because Roman failed to supply the change-of-plea transcript, the Court invoked Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules and held that it could not verify the circumstances surrounding the disputed statement or the waiver. This procedural lapse alone weakened Roman’s attack on the sentencing justice’s fact-finding.
Rule 35 Discretion Framework. Applying the Rivera/Snell line of cases, the Court found the 30-year sentence (with 10 non-parolable) justified in light of: (i) thirteen shots fired at a police cruiser, (ii) prior firearm convictions, (iii) on-probation status, and (iv) defendant’s conscious decision to arm himself when police arrival was imminent.
Waiver Analysis. While the Superior Court relied on Roman’s plea-form waiver, the Supreme Court stressed that a check-mark next to a pre-printed waiver might not, standing alone, bar Rule 35 relief. Rule 58 permits standardized forms, but the Court signaled that such forms must still comport with voluntariness and informed-consent principles. The Court proceeded to review the merits and affirmed, thereby reserving for another day whether a waiver alone could suffice.

3. Impact on Future Cases

The decision’s practical significance lies in its nuanced treatment of Rule 35 waivers embedded in plea agreements:

Trial courts can no longer treat the waiver box as a categorical bar; they must at least consider whether the sentence merits revisiting.
Defense counsel should not assume that a waiver forecloses Rule 35; however, defendants must still compile a complete record (including transcripts) and marshal compelling mitigating evidence.
Prosecutors may rethink reliance on blanket waivers and instead focus on articulating substantive reasons why leniency is unwarranted.

More broadly, the judgment reinforces Rhode Island’s stringent standard for disturbing sentences while leaving the door ajar for equitable relief notwithstanding boiler-plate waivers.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 35 Motion: A post-sentence petition asking the trial judge to lower the sentence, usually within 120 days. Think of it as a “last-chance request for mercy” before the file is closed.
Non-parolable Time: A mandatory portion of the sentence during which the inmate is ineligible for parole. Roman must serve at least ten years before any parole consideration.
Ghost Gun: An un-serialized, often self-assembled firearm that is difficult to trace. Rhode Island General Laws §11-47-2(8) expressly criminalize possession.
Habitual Offender Enhancement: A statutory mechanism allowing longer sentences for defendants with prior convictions for crimes of violence.
“Without Justification and Grossly Disparate” Standard: The appellate benchmark requiring proof that no reasonable sentencing judge would impose such a penalty compared with sentences for similar crimes.

Conclusion

State v. Roman affirms a lengthy sentence for a violent, firearms-related rampage but, more importantly, signals the Supreme Court’s skepticism toward automatic Rule 35 waivers contained in plea forms. While defendants still face a formidable hurdle in overturning sentences, the judgment preserves judicial discretion to consider leniency—even where a standardized form suggests otherwise. Practitioners should view this opinion as both a cautionary tale about incomplete appellate records and a roadmap for challenging or defending sentences in the wake of negotiated plea agreements.