State v. Eric Neufville

Supreme Court

No. 2022-178-C.A.
(P2/12-1323A)

State :

v. :

Eric Neufville. :

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing

that the parties show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

summarily decided. After examining the memoranda and arguments presented by

the parties, we conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the

appeal at this time. We reverse the judgment and remand this matter to the Superior

Court with instructions to enter a new judgment of civil liability.

On November 18, 2013, defendant Eric Neufville (defendant or Neufville)

entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of obtaining money under false

pretenses (count one) and accessing a computer for fraudulent purposes (count

three). As relevant to this appeal, Neufville was sentenced to a term of eight years,

all of which was suspended with probation, and ordered to pay restitution in the

-1-
amount of $2,636.99, a condition of probation that he failed to satisfy. The

defendant served nearly his entire probationary sentence concurrent to an unrelated

sentence of incarceration.

Approximately six weeks before the expiration of the eight-year probationary

sentence, on or about October 7, 2021, the state filed a violation report pursuant to

Rule 32(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 The report

described the violation as: “DEFENDANT UNABLE TO PAY RESTITUTION IN

FULL PRIOR TO EXPIRATION OF SENTENCE.”

On November 16, 2021—one day before the eight-year probationary

sentence expired—the trial justice conducted the Rule 32(f) hearing, during which

the state presented, without objection, Neufville’s judgment of conviction and a

summary of restitution.2 Thereafter, the state rested its case and the trial justice

1
We recognize that at the time the state filed the Rule 32(f) notice it did not have
the benefit of our recent decisions in State v. Alicea, 316 A.3d 1177 (R.I. 2024), and
State v. Regan, 273 A.3d 116 (R.I. 2022). We take this opportunity to observe,
however, that this Court is once again confronted with a Rule 32(f) notice filed at
the eleventh hour for a defendant’s failure to pay restitution. We decry such dilatory
conduct and observe that in the event the Superior Court continues to be confronted
with an eleventh-hour Rule 32(f) notice for a defendant’s failure to satisfy the full
amount of his or her restitution, it would behoove a trial justice to require a showing
of diligence on the part of the party seeking enforcement. Our resolution of this
appeal renders any further discussion of this practice or its consequences
unnecessary.
2
The record evinces that Neufville was presented before the Superior Court on
November 9, 2021, and then again appeared before the Superior Court on November
15, 2021.
-2-
afforded defendant the opportunity to present evidence. Neufville did not present

any evidence; rather, he argued that, because he was incarcerated for the last eight

years, he lacked the ability to tender restitution payments; and he further argued

that, because he was presented as a Rule 32(f) violator days earlier, he was not

afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense.3 After considering the evidence,

the trial justice observed that “not a single dollar has been paid towards that

restitution amount” and she thus declared Neufville “in violation of the terms and

conditions of his sentence.” The trial justice continued this matter until

mid-February 2022 for sentencing. Neufville filed a notice of appeal, and on June

17, 2022, the appeal was docketed in this Court. Importantly, after the expiration

of defendant’s probationary sentence—and after the docketing of this appeal—

Neufville continued to appear before the Superior Court on multiple occasions for

sentencing, culminating on October 6, 2023, when the Superior Court entered a

judgment of civil liability in the amount of $2,486.94. See G.L. 1956 § 12-28-5.1.4

3
On appeal, Neufville does not raise the inability to present a defense to the
probation-violation charge, and therefore, we have no occasion to consider such an
argument. See Drew v. State, 198 A.3d 528, 530 (R.I. 2019) (mem.) (holding that
failure to meaningfully develop an appellate argument constitutes waiver).
Neufville also challenges on appeal the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to hear the
probation-violation charge due to a drafting error in G.L. 1956 § 12-19-9. We
decline to address this argument in light of our resolution of the appeal.
4
General Laws 1956 § 12-28-5.1, entitled “Restitution,” provides:

-3-
The Superior Court did not impose a sentence upon Neufville for violating the terms

and conditions of probation, either during the probationary term or at any time

thereafter.

We agree with the state’s submission made during oral argument that this

appeal is controlled by State v. Regan, 273 A.3d 116 (R.I. 2022). In Regan, after

defendant was declared a probation violator for failing to satisfy restitution, this

Court recognized that “the trial justice continued the sentencing hearing on several

occasions in order to keep the sentence ‘hanging over his head’ so that in the event

Regan failed to comply with making payments, the court could ‘remove the

suspended period of time and order him to serve that amount of time at the ACI.’”

“When the court orders a defendant to make financial
restitution to the victim of a crime of which the defendant
has been convicted or to which the defendant has pleaded
guilty or nolo contendere, a civil judgment shall
automatically be entered by the trial court against the
defendant on behalf of the victim for that amount. If
payment is not made by the defendant within the period
set by the court, the civil judgment for the amount of the
restitution ordered, plus interest at the statutory amount
from the date of the offense, plus costs of suit, including
reasonable attorney’s fees, shall be enforceable by any and
all means presently available in law for the collection of
delinquent judgments in civil cases generally.”

The record indicates that Neufville paid $150 toward restitution, thus accounting for
the difference in the amount of restitution ordered and the amount of the civil
judgment entered.

-4-
Regan, 273 A.3d at 121 (brackets omitted). In so doing, we explained that, although

“Regan remains civilly liable for his restitution obligation,” due to the expiration of

the probationary sentence, “his sentence and the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to

oversee his probation for the offense for which he was convicted has concluded.”

Id. (“[I]t is well established that a probation violation does not allow the trial justice

to extend probation or impose a sentence after probation has expired.”) (emphasis

added).

Similarly, in this case, the Superior Court’s authority to oversee Neufville’s

probation concluded when the sentence of probation expired on November 17,

2021; however, the Superior Court continued to convene probation-violation

sentencing proceedings, including on October 6, 2023, when it entered a judgment

of civil liability. We also note that when this appeal was docketed on June 17, 2022,

the Superior Court was divested of its jurisdiction. See Thompson v. Thompson, 973

A.2d 499, 513 (R.I. 2009) (“It is well established that once an appeal has been

docketed in this Court, the lower court no longer has jurisdiction.”).

For these reasons, the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to enter a

judgment of civil liability on October 6, 2023, and we reverse the judgment. We

remand the papers in this case to the Superior Court with instructions to enter a new

judgment of civil liability. See § 12-28-5.1.

-5-
Entered as an Order of this Court this ____ day of _________, 2024.

By Order,

____________________
Clerk

-6-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case State v. Eric Neufville.

No. 2022-178-C.A.
Case Number
(P2/12-1323A)

Date Order Filed October 18, 2024

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Maureen B. Keough

For State:

Christopher R. Bush
Attorney(s) on Appeal Department of Attorney General
For Defendant:

Carl J. Ricci, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)