JONATHAN P. CORRENTE
GINA M. RAIMONDO, GENERAL TREASURER, CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAM, IWONA RUSEK RAMIAN, ESQ., DEPUTY PROGRAMADMINISTRATOR AND MELISSA A. MALONE, DESIGNEE OF THE GENERAL TREASURER, DEPUTY GENERAL TREASURER/GENERAL COUNSEL
County Superior Court
Plaintiff: Jonathan P. Corrente, Pro Se
Defendant: Amy L. Crane, Esq.; Jeffrey Padwa, Esq.
matter before the Court is Jonathan P. Corrente's (Mr.
Corrente) appeal from an August 29, 2015 decision (CVCP
Decision) of the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP),
denying his application for compensation (the Application).
Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 42-35-15.
Facts and Travel
24, 2013, Mr. Corrente filed the Application with the CVCP
requesting compensation as a victim of a violent crime.
Compl. ¶ 22. In the Application, Mr. Corrente alleged
that he was the victim of abuse by family members from 1981
to 1985. See Pl.'s Mem., Ex. A. Mr.
Corrente maintains that until his recovery from alcohol and
drug abuse in 2013, the memory of the abuse was repressed.
6, 2013, the CVCP Deputy Administrator denied the Application
because of Mr. Corrente's failure to (1) file the
Application within the limitation period; and (2) report the
crimes within ten days of their occurrence. Pl.'s Mem.,
Ex. C. Mr. Corrente submitted a request for reconsideration
pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 12-25-18(g) on June 16, 2013.
Pl.'s Mem., Ex. D. In his request for reconsideration,
Mr. Corrente made several arguments including repressed
memory to explain the untimeliness of the Application.
Id. The request for reconsideration was received and
considered by the CVCP. Id.; see also
Pl.'s Mem., Ex. E.
August 29, 2013, the CVCP denied Mr. Corrente's request
for reconsideration in a formal decision. Pl.'s Mem., Ex.
F. The CVCP Decision concurred with the analysis of the CVCP
Deputy Director, finding that Mr. Corrente failed to timely
file the Application and report the crimes. Id.
Corrente appealed the CVCP Decision to the Superior Court on
September 23, 2013. In November 2015, Mr. Corrente moved to
present additional evidence. On appeal, he argues that the
CVCP Decision is in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions and clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
Pl.'s Mem. 5. More pointedly, Mr. Corrente contends that
the CVCP violated statutory provisions, as it did not
properly analyze whether his particular case fell into one of
the exceptions to the limitation period. Mr. Corrente
concedes that CVCP Rules and Regulations § 1.06(1)(a)
cannot apply, as the Application was not filed within three
years of his eighteenth birthday. It is maintained that the
record documents that the limitation period should have been
tolled under § 1.06(1)(b), due to the fact that the
abuse was not discovered within the limitation period.
Likewise, Mr. Corrente posits that the limitation period
should have been tolled for good cause under §
1.06(1)(c), as he was abused as a child and repressed the
memories of his abuse until later in his adult life. For
similar reasons, Mr. Corrente argues that the record
indicates that he was justified in filing his police report
late. Mr. Corrente contends that he did not discover his
abuse until 2013, and after he realized it, he immediately
filed a report with the Cranston Police Department (the
Police). Mr. Corrente maintains that a view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record
demonstrates that the CVCP Decision was clearly erroneous.
opposition, the CVCP argues that it properly considered all
of the exceptions and their applicability to Mr.
Corrente's case. Nevertheless, the CVCP posits that the
exceptions are either inapplicable or unsupported by
objective evidence on the record.
Island General Laws § 12-25-18(i) explicitly states that
appeals of the Rhode Island General Treasurer's Designee
may be brought in the Superior Court pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act. Section 42-35-15(g) sets ...