State v. Clark

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Clark

446 A.2d 737, 1982 R.I. LEXIS 862

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 26, 1982

DocketNo. 81-587-C.A.

StatusPublished

This text of 446 A.2d 737 (State v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Clark, 446 A.2d 737, 1982 R.I. LEXIS 862 (R.I. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On May 7, 1982, the defendant, Sidney A. Clark (Clark), through counsel, appeared before this court in response to an order to show cause why his appeal from a Superior Court justice’s denial of his motion to reduce his life sentence should not be summarily dismissed. The life sentence was imposed after this court in State v. Cline, R.I., 397 A.2d 1309 (1979), had ruled that the mandatory death provisions of G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-23-2, as amended by P.L.1973, ch. 280 § 1, violated the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

Clark had been sentenced to death for the murder of Claude A. Saunders, a fellow inmate. The murder occurred on November 2,1974, at the Adult Correctional Institutions at a time when Clark was serving a fifteen-year sentence for the July 1969 rape of a college student. See State v. Clark, 112 R.I. 270, 308 A.2d 792 (1973).

In denying Clark’s motion, the sentencing justice described the murder as “cold, calculated, and brutal.” He also alluded to the various factors that should be considered in the sentencing process, such as the possibility of rehabilitation; the defendant’s background, beliefs, and attitudes; the severity of the crime involved; and whether or not the punishment will serve as a deterrent to others as well as serve society’s need for protection by removing someone from its ranks who may pose a danger to the common good. The sentencing justice then noted that he had read the presentence report and its observation that the possibility of Clark’s rehabilitation was “very, very questionable.” He also expressed the wish that the life sentence would be considered as a deterrent to those who at some time would wish to follow Clark’s example.

We have examined the memoranda and arguments of counsel and are of the belief that no cause has been shown. The defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On May 7, 1982, the defendant, Sidney A. Clark (Clark), through counsel, appeared before this court in response to an order to show cause why his appeal from a Superior Court justice’s denial of his motion to reduce his life sentence should not be summarily dismissed. The life sentence was imposed after this court in State v. Cline, R.I., 397 A.2d 1309 (1979), had ruled that the mandatory death provisions of G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-23-2, as amended by P.L.1973, ch. 280 § 1, violated the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

Clark had been sentenced to death for the murder of Claude A. Saunders, a fellow inmate. The murder occurred on November 2,1974, at the Adult Correctional Institutions at a time when Clark was serving a fifteen-year sentence for the July 1969 rape of a college student. See State v. Clark, 112 R.I. 270, 308 A.2d 792 (1973).

In denying Clark’s motion, the sentencing justice described the murder as “cold, calculated, and brutal.” He also alluded to the various factors that should be considered in the sentencing process, such as the possibility of rehabilitation; the defendant’s background, beliefs, and attitudes; the severity of the crime involved; and whether or not the punishment will serve as a deterrent to others as well as serve society’s need for protection by removing someone from its ranks who may pose a danger to the common good. The sentencing justice then noted that he had read the presentence report and its observation that the possibility of Clark’s rehabilitation was “very, very questionable.” He also expressed the wish that the life sentence would be considered as a deterrent to those who at some time would wish to follow Clark’s example.

We have examined the memoranda and arguments of counsel and are of the belief that no cause has been shown. The defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 A.2d 737, 1982 R.I. LEXIS 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-ri-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack