State v. Bradley Peterson

Supreme Court

No. 2024-323-C.A.
(N1/93-240A)

State :

v. :

Bradley Peterson. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical
or other formal errors in order that corrections may be
made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court

No. 2024-323-C.A.
(N1/93-240A)

State :

v. :

Bradley Peterson. :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Robinson, for the Court. The pro se1 defendant, Bradley Peterson,

seeks review of an adjudication of a probation violation that was entered after a

hearing in the Providence County Superior Court on June 10 and June 11, 2024. At

the conclusion of that hearing, the hearing justice found that Mr. Peterson had

violated the terms and conditions of his probation and ordered him to serve nine

years of the remaining ten-year suspended sentence that had been imposed as a result

of an earlier conviction.

1
We note that, during the pendency of this appeal, after initially having been
represented by counsel, the defendant opted to proceed pro se.

-1-
On appeal, defendant contends that the hearing justice abused his discretion

because, in defendant’s view, the sentence imposed for the probation violation at

issue was excessive.

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

parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and

after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and

that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court.

I

Facts and Travel

The factual background of this case is described in our opinion in State v.

Peterson, 722 A.2d 259 (R.I. 1998), which dealt with the underlying conviction that

relates to this case. Accordingly, we shall recount here only the facts necessary for

our analysis of the issue relevant to this appeal.

In 1995, defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery.

Peterson, 722 A.2d at 260. At that trial, the evidence showed that defendant had

feigned being a pedestrian who had been struck by a truck driven by an Army medic.

Id. at 261. After a struggle, during which defendant informed the victim that he had

-2-
a gun, defendant stole the victim’s truck and later abandoned it in Providence. Id.

Items were reported missing from the stolen truck, “including a Realistic

microphone, a box of collectible antique U.S. Army ammunition with distinctive

markings, and a Sony AM–FM disc player.” Id.

Pursuant to that robbery conviction, he was sentenced to thirty years—twenty

years of which were to be served, with ten years suspended—and probation.

Peterson, 722 A.2d at 260. The defendant also received “a consecutive fifteen-year

term of imprisonment as an habitual offender.” Id. The trial justice subsequently

reduced defendant’s habitual offender sentence to five years, to be served

consecutively to the twenty-year sentence. Id. at 260-61.2

On February 27, 2024, the state filed a notice of probation violation pursuant

to Rule 32(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging that

defendant had not complied with a condition of his probation due to the fact that he

had failed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. On June 10 and June 11, 2024,

a probation violation hearing was held in the Superior Court. We recount below the

salient aspects of that hearing.

2
Subsequently, this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of robbery in
the second degree. State v. Peterson, 722 A.2d 259, 265 (R.I. 1998).

-3-
A

The Testimony of the Complaining Witness’s Mother

The mother of the complaining witness was the first witness called to testify.

The complaining witness’s mother testified that she currently lives in Pennsylvania,

as she did at the time of the events at issue. She stated that, on February 20 and 21,

2024, she received a “very disturbing” voice message3 from an unknown number

mentioning her daughter’s name, which prompted her to call the Pennsylvania State

Police and to file a report. She further testified that, after having received a total of

three phone calls, she “blocked the number.” It was the testimony of the

complaining witness’s mother that she found it disturbing that someone was calling

her phone number looking for her daughter, who was in Rhode Island and not

Pennsylvania.

B

The Testimony of the Complaining Witness

The complaining witness was the next witness called to testify. She testified

that, as of the time of the hearing, she had been employed as a television news

reporter and anchor for approximately three years. The complaining witness stated

that she had previously lived at 75 South Union Street in Pawtucket, Rhode Island,

3
The recording of the voice message was entered into evidence as a full exhibit,
and it was played at the hearing in its entirety.

-4-
at an apartment complex called Slater Cotton Mill. She testified that, in February of

2024, while her lease at Slater Cotton Mill was still active, she moved to a different

apartment. She added, however, that she would occasionally return to Slater Cotton

Mill to retrieve some personal belongings.

The complaining witness testified that, on February 21, 2024, her mother

called her to inform her that someone calling from a New Hampshire phone number

had been attempting to contact her. She added that, after she had spoken by phone

with her mother, she received a phone call from one Nicole Zillich, the property

manager at the Slater Cotton Mill apartment complex. The complaining witness

stated that, after she spoke with Ms. Zillich (see infra), she became concerned about

her safety, and she called both the Pawtucket Police Department and the Bristol

Police Department. She also stated that Ms. Zillich had sent her photographs of the

person trying to get in touch with her.

The complaining witness testified that, on the morning of February 24, 2024,

she woke up and saw that she had received multiple missed calls and voice messages

“from a number that showed up at the Slater Cotton Mill.”4 The complaining witness

added that she turned over to the Bristol Police Department as well as to the Attorney

4
The complaining witness had previously testified that, if someone was
physically outside the apartment complex seeking to get into her apartment, she
would receive a notification of the fact on her cell phone.

-5-
General’s office the “screen shots” of the calls and the recordings from the voice

messages.5 She acknowledged that the person who left the voice message said: “It’s

Brad.”

It was the complaining witness’s further testimony that Ms. Zillich sent her

photographs of a person holding up a sign at the Slater Cotton Mill apartment

complex on February 24. She stated that she did not recognize the person in the

photographs but that the photographs appeared to depict the same person as was

depicted in the photographs that Ms. Zillich had sent on February 21. The

complaining witness noted that she immediately turned those photographs over to

the Bristol Police Department. She additionally stated that, after becoming aware of

the just-described information on February 24, she felt “terrified” and “shocked.”

According to the complaining witness, the various attempts to contact her

altered the way she proceeded with her life. She explained that she did not feel

“comfortable doing [her] job, going anywhere, [or] to tell anyone where [she] was

* * *.” She further noted that, because she was uncomfortable, she “stopped a lot of

[her] daily routine” and that it had caused her to feel “uneasy to do everyday life

things * * *.” The complaining witness testified that, after she listened to the voice

messages, she was in fear for her life and her safety. When asked how she felt when

5
The recordings of the voice messages were fully played and were entered into
evidence at the hearing.

-6-
the caller on the voice messages said he loved her, she responded that she felt

nauseous because she did not know who the person was.

The complaining witness testified that she became aware that, on February

26, 2024, “Bradley Peterson was arrested for these incidences.” She added that, after

learning of the arrest, she went through her work e-mails and found an e-mail from

someone identified as Bradley Peterson, which she printed and turned over to the

Bristol Police Department and the Attorney General’s office. The complaining

witness indicated that she had responded to that e-mail (as she normally did when

viewers of her televised broadcasts would reach out to her) but that she did not

respond to any additional e-mails from defendant after that initial communication.6

The complaining witness testified that those additional e-mails caused her to be

further concerned for her safety.

C

The Testimony of Nicole Zillich

Ms. Zillich testified that she is employed by Dalkey Management and that she

is the senior property manager of Slater Cotton Mills. She testified that, on the

morning of February 21, 2024, she arrived at the Slater Cotton Mills apartment

6
The complaining witness testified that, after the initial e-mail communication,
she received at least four more e-mails from someone self-identifying as Bradley
Peterson.

-7-
complex and noticed a bicycle leaning against the stairs at the building’s entrance.

She added that the bicycle had “some belongings strapped to it,” and she said that

she “thought that was kind of odd.” Ms. Zillich testified that she then reviewed

camera footage; and on the footage she observed that a man, who was later identified

as defendant, had been in the mailroom. According to Ms. Zillich, upon observing

defendant on the camera footage, she went to the mailroom to question him because

she knew he was not a tenant at the complex. Ms. Zillich stated that, when she asked

defendant if she could help him, he replied: “I’m looking for my friend, [the

complaining witness],” who he claimed was expecting him. Ms. Zillich recalled that

she informed him: “You can give her a call. If not, you need to leave the building

until she comes to get you. You can’t be in the building.” She testified that she then

contacted the complaining witness to inform her what had happened, and she added

that she sent her photographs from the camera footage.

Ms. Zillich further testified that she later received a phone call from her

leasing associate, Malina Paniacca. On February 24, 2024, after speaking with Ms.

Paniacca, Ms. Zillich checked the video surveillance and noticed that the same

individual as had been involved in the February 21st encounter had returned to the

Slater Cotton Mills apartment complex. She added that, when reviewing the

February 24th video surveillance footage, she observed defendant holding what

“seemed to be a magnet that said, ‘I love you’ * * *;” she stated that the video

-8-
surveillance footage shows that defendant “then slowly puts it down and walks

casually away, like it was normal.” Ms. Zillich testified that she gave this footage

to the Bristol Police Department. She further stated that she also sent to the

complaining witness a photograph “pulled from” the video surveillance footage.

On cross-examination, Ms. Zillich testified that, when she spoke to the

individual on February 21, she felt “threatened by him.” She added that she felt

uncomfortable by the way he was standing and speaking to her.

D

The Testimony of Patrol Officer Raquel Pederzani

Officer Raquel Pederzani of the Pawtucket Police Department was the last

witness called to testify. She testified that, on the morning of February 24, 2024,

she heard about a call “regarding a suspicious person” near the Slater Cotton Mills

apartment complex. She elaborated that “there was an unwanted party at the Slater

Cotton Mills and that the property manager called it in.” Officer Pederzani testified

that the Pawtucket Police eventually located the individual who matched the

description provided by Slater Cotton Mills.

Officer Pederzani testified that, upon arriving at the scene, she searched the

area and interacted with the individual. She identified the individual as Bradley

Peterson, who she noted is the defendant in this case. Officer Pederzani stated that,

prior to February 24, she had had contact with defendant and knew who he was. It

-9-
was her further testimony that, when she spoke to defendant, he informed her that

he was at the apartment complex to see the complaining witness. Officer Pederzani

also stated that defendant voluntarily gave her his phone.

On cross-examination, Officer Pederzani testified that defendant was

cooperative with the officers in the course of their investigation. She further

acknowledged that he did not act in “any type of threatening manner towards” her

and that he was peaceful throughout their interaction. Officer Pederzani testified

that, once the investigation concluded, “he left without any incident.” She

additionally stated that there has been no indication that defendant ever returned to

Slater Cotton Mills after that interaction.

E

The Hearing Justice’s Decision

After the parties presented their arguments, the hearing justice rendered a

bench decision, in which he found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant

had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. He summarized the evidence

and testimony introduced at the hearing. In particular, he found that the complaining

witness was terrified, that her “life changed tremendously,” and that she “was

concerned all the time, even though she did not know Mr. Peterson.” The hearing

justice explicitly stated that he found the testimony of the complaining witness’s

- 10 -
mother, Ms. Zillich, and Officer Pederzani to be “highly credible.” In addition, he

found the complaining witness to be “very, very credible.”

The hearing justice further stated that, although defendant did not testify, he

observed him watch the complaining witness “carefully on the stand, though he did

not do so with all of the witnesses.” He added that, when Ms. Zillich and Officer

Pederzani testified, defendant was “constantly looking at [the complaining

witness].” The hearing justice also emphasized that, when the complaining witness

testified as to how her life had been impacted, defendant seemed to have no reaction.

He additionally made note of the fact that it “doesn’t matter that [the complaining

witness] * * * has a public presence.” The hearing justice concluded that defendant’s

behavior was “unjustified” and that he had failed to keep the peace and be of good

behavior. And he stated: “He is a violator * * * of his sentence.”

F

The Sentencing

On July 10, 2024, the hearing justice heard the parties’ arguments relative to

what would be an appropriate sentence for defendant’s probation violation. In

applying the factors articulated by this Court in State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482 (R.I.

1994), the state first provided a recitation of the facts of the underlying

second-degree robbery conviction. The state added that it did not have any

information relative to defendant’s employment or educational background.

- 11 -
Regarding rehabilitation, the state posited that “defendant’s long criminal history

would make this defendant’s possibility of rehabilitation extremely low.” The state

argued that defendant’s history of violence (including the fact that the underlying

conviction was for a violent crime) and “his inability to conform his actions to any

type of norms or rules” are indications that rehabilitation is unlikely. Additionally,

the state contended that the hearing justice should not overlook the triggering

offense—namely, the stalking of the complaining witness. The state emphasized

that defendant’s actions “shattered [the complaining witness’s] sense of privacy,

shattered her sense of security.” The state suggested that, in view of the court’s

findings concerning the instant probation violation, defendant should be sentenced

to serve seven years of his suspended ten-year sentence.

Counsel for defendant pointed out that the charges which the state had

referenced were approximately twenty years old and that the pending stalking charge

did not assert that any type of violent action was taken by defendant. Counsel for

defendant further contended that defendant’s previous incarceration impacted his

understanding of “certain social norms.” Counsel stated that defendant was capable

of rehabilitation and advocated for him to receive the “proper mental health

treatment * * *.”

In considering defendant’s sentence, the hearing justice reviewed the factors

enumerated by this Court in State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482 (R.I. 1994), and State v.

- 12 -
Gordon, 539 A.2d 528 (R.I. 1988). The hearing justice acknowledged that the events

that gave rise to the probation violation were nonviolent, but he also noted that

defendant’s actions placed the complaining witness in fear for her life when he is

not incarcerated. He noted, among other things, that defendant had attempted to

make contact with the complaining witness’s mother and that he had been inside the

complaining witness’s apartment complex. The hearing justice additionally

observed that defendant’s behavior in the courtroom had been “somewhat odd” and

that defendant is a “very troubled individual.” He added that defendant’s “history is

clearly one of violence, and the impact upon [the complaining witness] is clearly

significant.” In addressing defendant’s criminal history (specifically the

second-degree robbery conviction), the hearing justice explicitly took note of that

1995 robbery conviction7 and the “[o]bviously significant behavior.”

Turning to rehabilitation, the hearing justice noted defendant’s tendency to be

impulsive. He stated that defendant’s “potential for rehabilitation indicates that his

attitude towards society is poor. He has no remorse.” The hearing justice also

determined that the punishment was “clearly appropriate here.” Lastly, as it related

to social deterrence, the hearing justice stated that “[s]ociety needs to know” that

7
See Peterson, 722 A.2d at 259-61.

- 13 -
individuals exhibiting “abhorrent” and unacceptable behavior such as defendant “are

being dealt with by the courts in an appropriate manner.”

For those reasons, the hearing justice sentenced defendant to serve nine years

of his suspended ten-year sentence.

A judgment of conviction and commitment on the probation violation was

entered on July 19, 2024. The defendant filed a notice of appeal on July 24, 2024.

II

Issue on Appeal

The defendant argues on appeal that the hearing justice imposed an excessive

sentence and abused his direction when he considered “both the underlying

conviction and the violation allegations * * * when he sentenced [defendant] to nine

years to serve.”

III

Standard of Review

When a trial justice is confronted with adjudicating an allegation of a

probation violation, this Court has made it clear that “the sole issue for the court to

consider at a probation-violation hearing is whether or not the defendant has

breached a condition of his or her probation by failing to keep the peace or remain

on good behavior.” State v. Fairweather, 138 A.3d 822, 826 (R.I. 2016) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to Rule 32(f) of the Superior Court Rules of

- 14 -
Criminal Procedure, the state must show “by a fair preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant breached a condition of the defendant’s probation * * * or failed

to keep the peace or remain on good behavior.” State v. D'Amico, 200 A.3d 1068,

1071-72 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Super. R. Crim. P. 32(f)).

In determining whether a defendant has violated his or her probation, the

hearing justice weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.

State v. Segrain, 243 A.3d 1055, 1062 (R.I. 2021). We have additionally stated that

“deference should be accorded to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses made

by a judicial officer who has had the opportunity to listen to live testimony and to

observe demeanor.” Fairweather, 138 A.3d at 827 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

IV

Analysis

On appeal, defendant contends that the hearing justice abused his discretion

in considering both the underlying conviction and the alleged violation of his

probation when he imposed what defendant considers to be an excessive sentence.

In particular, defendant first argues that the hearing justice erroneously focused on

defendant’s recent conduct rather than primarily focusing on the original offense.

Second, defendant also contends that “nine more years to serve for a second-degree

robbery that occurred in 1993—when Mr. Peterson had already completed a

- 15 -
twenty-year sentence for that crime (in addition to five years as a habitual

offender)—is excessive.” The defendant notes that the “Superior Court Sentencing

Benchmark for second-degree robbery, unarmed with no injury, is three to six years

to serve.” He argues that “[i]f the hearing justice’s sentence is affirmed, [defendant]

will face five to ten times the recommended sentence, not including the habitual

sentence.” Third, defendant posits that his recent conduct also does not warrant a

nine-year sentence. Fourth, defendant takes issue with the hearing justice’s

reference to his criminal history. Finally, defendant asserts that he can be

rehabilitated, emphasizing that he had been “working and staying out of trouble”

since he was released from prison in 2017 until his arrest in 2024.

For its part, the state stresses that the hearing justice carefully addressed each

Tiernan factor in his sentencing decision, including: the severity of the 1993 crime,

defendant’s personal background, his potential for rehabilitation, the

appropriateness of the punishment, and the element of social deterrence. The state

additionally argues that executing nine years of the ten-year suspended sentence is

not excessive because defendant “is a habitual offender and, as this Court noted in

Peterson, 722 A.2d[] at 261, had an active arrest warrant for domestic assault when

he committed what this [C]ourt described as a ‘carjacking.’” It is also the state’s

position that defendant minimizes the distressing and disturbing behavior that

formed the basis of the instant probation violation. The state adds that, to the extent

- 16 -
that defendant is contending that his original sentence was excessive, the “time for

challenging the 1995 second-degree robbery sentence has long since passed * * *.”

This Court has “established that the unexecuted portion of a probationer’s

suspended sentence hangs over his or her head by the single horsehair of good

behavior, until such time as the term of probation expires.” Segrain, 243 A.3d at

1062 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Parson, 844 A.2d 178, 180

(R.I. 2004); see also State v. McKinnon-Conneally, 101 A.3d 875, 879 (R.I. 2014).

And “[w]hen a defendant severs that single horsehair by violating the terms and

conditions of his or her probation, the hearing justice has wide discretion to

determine whether to execute any or all of a defendant’s previously suspended

sentence.” Segrain, 243 A.3d at 1062 (internal quotation marks and emphasis

omitted). Importantly, this Court has firmly established that “although a hearing

justice must focus primarily on the nature of the first offense, he or she may also

consider the circumstances of the second offense.” Id.; see McKinnon-Conneally,

101 A.3d at 879.

In our view, the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion by taking into

account both the seriousness of the original felony as well as the very upsetting

nature of defendant’s recent conduct in sentencing him to the nine years remaining

on his previously suspended ten-year sentence. This case is akin to that of State v.

Segrain, 243 A.3d 1055 (R.I. 2021), in which this Court upheld the sentence imposed

- 17 -
by the hearing justice because she based “her sentencing decision on several factors,

namely: the seriousness of the 2012 conviction; the gravity of the more recent

conduct; the possibility of rehabilitation; and other traditional sentencing factors.”

Segrain, 243 A.3d at 1063 (emphasis in original).

In the case at bar, we are satisfied that the hearing justice conducted a

thoughtful review of the relevant factors—namely, the severity of the original crime,

defendant’s personal and educational background, his potential for rehabilitation,

the appropriateness of the punishment, and the element of social deterrence. See

State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I. 1994); State v. Gordon, 539 A.2d 528, 530

(R.I. 1988). He further carefully evaluated the evidence presented. In his decision,

the hearing justice, while acknowledging that the event which gave rise to the

probation violation was “nonviolent,” emphasized the fearfulness that defendant’s

conduct caused the complaining witness to experience. And he also made note of

the concerning “odd,” “inappropriate,” and “not socially acceptable” behavior

exhibited by defendant. Notably, the hearing justice stated: “[The defendant’s]

history is clearly one of violence, and the impact upon [the complaining witness] is

clearly significant.”

In further addressing the facts precipitating the probation violation hearing,

the hearing justice concluded that defendant’s impulsive behavior was the “most

frightening of all.” He noted that defendant showed no remorse, and he determined

- 18 -
that defendant was not a good candidate for rehabilitation. See Segrain, 243 A.3d at

1062 (“We have found that consideration of the severity of a defendant’s more recent

wrongdoing as it relates to his or her ability to be rehabilitated is a factor that may

be appropriately considered in making a sentencing determination.”).

The hearing justice also gave weight to both the gravity of the “significant

behavior” of the underlying second-degree robbery conviction and defendant’s more

recent violent behavior as evidenced in recent prison reports. In addition, he

considered defendant’s personal background, and he evaluated the factors of social

deterrence and the appropriateness of the punishment. We are therefore persuaded

that the hearing justice in the instant case considered several appropriate factors in

making his sentencing decision and that he did not rely solely on defendant’s more

recent conduct.8 See State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811, 818 (R.I. 2008) (holding in

part that the hearing justice “did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in fashioning the

defendant’s sentence” because he conducted a “thoughtful analysis of the various

relevant factors”).

8
Additionally, to the extent that defendant is challenging the original sentence
imposed for the second-degree robbery conviction, it is our definite view that
defendant is barred from asserting such a claim. We have made clear that “[a]ny
objection to defendant’s original sentence should have been made within 120 days
of the time when the original sentence was imposed, pursuant to Rule 35 of the
Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.” State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811,
817 (R.I. 2008) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

- 19 -
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the hearing justice did not

abuse his discretion in executing the nine years of the defendant’s original ten-year

suspended sentence.

V

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.

Justice Goldberg did not participate.

- 20 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case State v. Bradley Peterson.

No. 2024-323-C.A.
Case Number
(N1/93-240A)

Date Opinion Filed May 7, 2026

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

Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III

Source of Appeal Newport County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Jeffrey A. Lanphear

For State:

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

Bradley Peterson, pro se

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)