Abstract
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law,” providing that “any person sentenced for any offense prior to his or her twenty-second birthday” is eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute as written does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses and serving consecutive sentences, including the Respondents in this case—Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the namesake of Mario’s Law—and to the extent it does apply, it violates separation of powers principles. The judgment is pending.
Abstract
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law,” providing that “any person sentenced for any offense prior to his or her twenty-second birthday” is eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute as written does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses and serving consecutive sentences, including the Respondents in this case—Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the namesake of Mario’s Law—and to the extent it does apply, it violates separation of powers principles. The judgment is pending.
Summary
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute, informally termed "Mario's Law," which stipulates that individuals sentenced for any offense committed prior to their twenty-second birthday become eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute's current phrasing does not apply to persons convicted of multiple offenses who are serving consecutive sentences. This category includes the Respondents in the ongoing legal action: Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the individual for whom the law is named. Furthermore, the State posits that if the statute were interpreted to apply in such cases, it would infringe upon established separation of powers principles. A judicial decision on this matter is presently pending.
Abstract
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law,” providing that “any person sentenced for any offense prior to his or her twenty-second birthday” is eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute as written does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses and serving consecutive sentences, including the Respondents in this case—Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the namesake of Mario’s Law—and to the extent it does apply, it violates separation of powers principles. The judgment is pending.
Summary
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law.” This legislation stipulates that any person who was sentenced for an offense before their twenty-second birthday becomes eligible for parole after completing twenty years of their sentence. The State of Rhode Island contends that, as written, this statute does not extend to individuals convicted of multiple offenses who are serving consecutive sentences. This group includes the respondents in the current case: Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the individual for whom the law is named. The State further argues that if the law were to apply in such cases, it would violate the established principles of separation of powers within the government. A final judgment on this matter is currently pending.
Abstract
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law,” providing that “any person sentenced for any offense prior to his or her twenty-second birthday” is eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute as written does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses and serving consecutive sentences, including the Respondents in this case—Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the namesake of Mario’s Law—and to the extent it does apply, it violates separation of powers principles. The judgment is pending.
Summary
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a law known as “Mario’s Law.” This law makes a person eligible for parole after serving 20 years, if they were sentenced for a crime before their 22nd birthday.
The State of Rhode Island argues that this law, as it is written, does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses who are serving consecutive sentences. This group includes Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the person for whom the law is named. The State also claims that if the law does apply to these individuals, it would go against the principle of separation of powers.
A final decision on this legal issue is currently pending.
Abstract
In 2021, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a statute informally known as “Mario’s Law,” providing that “any person sentenced for any offense prior to his or her twenty-second birthday” is eligible for parole after serving twenty years. The State of Rhode Island contends that the statute as written does not apply to individuals convicted of multiple offenses and serving consecutive sentences, including the Respondents in this case—Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, the namesake of Mario’s Law—and to the extent it does apply, it violates separation of powers principles. The judgment is pending.
Summary
In 2021, lawmakers in Rhode Island created a rule known as “Mario’s Law.” This rule says that if a person was sent to prison for a crime before their 22nd birthday, they can ask to leave prison early after serving 20 years. However, the State of Rhode Island believes this rule does not apply to people who committed many crimes and have to serve one prison term after another. This includes the people in this court case: Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, who the law is named after. The State also believes that if the law does apply to these individuals, it breaks a rule about how the government shares power. A decision in this court case has not been made yet.