Justice GOLDBERG, for the Court.
This case came before the Supreme Court on November 2, 2011, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. The applicant, Craig C. Price (Price or applicant) was convicted, after a jury trial, of one count of criminal contempt and
Price next filed an application for postconviction relief in the Family Court on August 23, 2004, and a hearing was held on September 22, 2004. The application was denied in its entirety on February 14, 2005. Price is before the Court pro se on appeal from the denial of his application for postconviction relief.
On September 21, 1989, when he was just fifteen years old, Craig Price admitted committing four brutal murders, by multiple stab wounds and blunt-force trauma. It was undisputed that he "exhibited an unusual homicidal fury in the manner of killing his victims," including two young girls.
Undaunted, the Family Court persisted in its efforts toward Price's rehabilitation; on February 15, 1990, April 26, 1990, October 25, 1990, October 24, 1991, October 22, 1992, and October 19, 1993, the court issued orders requiring applicant's compliance with the treatment program. Price persisted in his refusal to cooperate. On June 27, 1994, the Chief Judge of the Family Court determined that applicant, who was twenty years of age, was in civil contempt of the orders of the Family Court. Price was ordered to be held at the ACI until such time as he would submit to the treatment program and, in so doing, purge himself of contempt; but in no event was he to be held longer than one year.
After a four-day jury trial, applicant was found guilty of criminal contempt. The trial justice sentenced Price to twenty-five years imprisonment, with ten years to serve and the balance suspended, with probation.
The applicant next applied for postconviction relief, alleging that: (1) his conviction was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) his conviction was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the sentence imposed amounted to cruel and unusual punishment by means of an excessive sentence; and (4) he was denied due process because he was declared a violator and ordered to serve a portion of the suspended sentence, which had not yet begun.
General Laws 1956 § 10-9.1-1, the postconviction remedy, provides an avenue for one convicted of a crime to seek collateral review of that conviction based on alleged violations of his or her constitutional rights. "In passing on a decision granting or denying postconviction relief, we will not disturb the factual findings of the [trial] justice absent clear error or a showing that the [trial] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong." Pierce v. Wall, 941 A.2d 189, 192 (R.I.2008) (citing Gonder v. State, 935 A.2d 82, 85 (R.I.2007)). This Court will, however, review a ruling concerning a defendant's constitutional rights de novo. Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 313 (R.I.2009) (citing Hassett v. State, 899 A.2d 430, 433 (R.I.2006)).
The applicant first avers that the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy was violated when he was convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to cooperate in psychiatric treatment, after having already been adjudicated to be in civil contempt for the same offense. In Price, 820 A.2d at 969, an opinion authored by former Chief Justice Weisberger, this Court held that Price's two contempt adjudications did not violate double jeopardy principles because the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "does not preclude imposing a criminal penalty after a civil penalty has been imposed * * * for the same act." Based on our conclusion in Price, 820 A.2d at 969, that applicant's double jeopardy argument lacked merit, res judicata bars us from again revisiting Price's claim of error.
In this case, Price seeks to distinguish his double jeopardy argument from the claim he previously litigated; he contends that his confinement for civil contempt actually was an adjudication of criminal contempt because, he argues, after the Family Court denied Price's motion to purge, the one year limitation placed by the Family Court on the civil contempt hold became punitive in nature.
Furthermore, were we to consider this latest incarnation of applicant's double jeopardy argument, we are satisfied that his contentions lack merit. This Court's decision in Price, 820 A.2d at 969 specifically held that the Family Court Chief Judge who adjudicated Price to be in civil contempt, "was attempting to use the contempt power [of the Family Court] to coerce the [applicant] into participating in and cooperating with the psychological and evaluation treatment program," thus affording Price the opportunity to purge himself of contempt simply by yielding to treatment. We conclude that the motivation behind the Family Court's order was a hallmark of civil contempt, which is designed to coerce the contemnor and bring about compliance with the court's directive. See id. The fact that the Family Court subsequently denied applicant's motion to purge himself of contempt is of no moment to the issue before this Court because Price had yet to comply with the court's orders by fully and truthfully cooperating with treatment professionals, nor did he seek to do so at any point thereafter. For all these reasons, we reject Price's double jeopardy argument.
The applicant's second contention follows from his first: he alleges that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the precise double jeopardy argument that he now raises on appeal. In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the rubric set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), an applicant must "show (1) `that counsel's performance was deficient, to the point that the errors were so serious that trial counsel did not function at the level guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,' and (2) `that such deficient performance was so prejudicial to the defense and the errors were so serious as to amount to a deprivation of the applicant's right to a fair trial.'" Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 629 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)). When alleging ineffective assistance by appellate counsel, "to meet both Strickland prongs, an applicant must demonstrate that the omitted issue was not only meritorious, but `clearly stronger' than those issues that actually were raised on appeal." Chalk v. State, 949 A.2d 395, 399 (R.I.2008) (quoting Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000)). Because we have determined that applicant's double jeopardy claim has no merit, it follows that applicant's counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise it.
The applicant next avers that the sentence of twenty-five years, ten years to serve and fifteen years suspended for criminal contempt, was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Price, 820 A.2d at 973, we observed that "this Court has generally declined to review either the validity, legality, or excessiveness of a sentence on direct appeal." The Court concluded that the proper course for challenging the sentence was to file a motion to reduce sentence in accordance with Rule 35. See Price, 820 A.2d at 973 ("we have steadfastly maintained the requirement that a defendant first seek relief from the Superior Court before we would consider reviewing the sentence for validity or excessiveness"); see also State v. McVeigh, 660 A.2d 269, 276 (R.I.1995) (stating this Court's firm position that a Rule 35 motion is the proper vehicle for challenging an improperly or illegally imposed sentence). The record before us discloses that Price did not pursue a sentence reduction under Rule 35 because he feared that by doing so, he would open the door for the state correspondingly to move for an increase in his sentence. The applicant contends that this Court should entertain his appeal notwithstanding his failure to proceed in accordance with Rule 35. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we shall do so.
Accordingly, we shall proceed to address the merits of applicant's contention that his sentence was excessive, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. "[A] constitutional violation will be found only in extreme circumstances in which the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offenses for which defendant stands convicted." State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784, 795 (R.I.2007); see McKinney v. State, 843 A.2d 463, 467 (R.I.2004) ("a punishment is `excessive' and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime" (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977))). In conducting this review, however, we are mindful that "[t]his Court has maintained `a strong policy against interfering with a trial justice's discretion in sentencing matters' * * *." State v. Snell, 11 A.3d 97, 101 (R.I.2011) (quoting State v. Ruffner, 5 A.3d 864, 867 (R.I.2010)).
The record demonstrates that applicant repeatedly and defiantly refused to obey a series of court orders directing him to comply with the therapeutic evaluation program that was painstakingly crafted by the Family Court with the salutary goal being rehabilitation.
In rejecting Price's contention that the sentence was excessive, the trial justice detailed the multiplicity of factors contributing toward the appropriateness of the sentence, including the fact that an esteemed mental health professional had determined that "there can be no doubt that Craig Price is a murderer of the serial type." Price, 820 A.2d at 961.
The applicant's final assertion of error concerns a finding that Price violated the terms of his probation, resulting in an additional seven years to serve. Price argues that because he was serving time for an unrelated charge at the time of the violation, he could not have violated a sentence that he was not yet serving. "Although it appears that G.L.1956 § 12-19-8 vests a sentencing justice with the authority to fix when the period of a defendant's probation is to commence, * * * that statute must be read in conjunction with § 12-19-9, which permits revocation of a defendant's probation whenever the terms and conditions inherent in the very privilege of probation are violated by the defendant." State v. Dantzler, 690 A.2d 338, 339 (R.I. 1997). Accordingly, in Price, 820 A.2d at 972, we held that applicant properly was held accountable for failing to be of good behavior. Our case law is clear that the sentencing justice "may revoke a suspended sentence or probationary term on the basis of criminal acts committed after imposition of a sentence but before the actual suspended or probationary portion of the
Price attempts to distinguish his case from Dantzler by arguing that the stringent supervisory conditions that the sentencing justice placed on any probationary term connected with the contempt conviction signified that the sentence did not commence until his release. The applicant's argument is misplaced. The implied condition of good behavior attaches when a suspended sentence is pronounced; whether the sentencing justice exercised his prerogative by outlining stringent conditions for probation is irrelevant. See Price, 820 A.2d at 972. We also note that this issue was considered and rejected in Price, 820 A.2d at 972-73; for that reason, the principle of res judicata bars further consideration of the issue on appeal. Accordingly, we reject the applicant's fourth and final assertion of error.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Family Court denying postconviction relief. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Family Court.
Chief Justice SUTTELL and Justice FLAHERTY did not participate.
We are now passing on Price's collateral attack on his contempt conviction. This Court is mindful that it has been over two decades since the Family Court first declared Price delinquent based on his commission of four murders. He has been imprisoned since 1989—over twenty-two years.
