Firearm Enhancement Defense Lawyer in Rhode Island

This is why early intervention from a defense lawyer who understands how firearm enhancements work—and how to challenge them—matters so much. The decisions made in the first days after arrest often determine whether an enhancement can be avoided, reduced, or successfully defended against at trial.

If you’re facing charges where a firearm enhancement has been alleged in Providence County, Kent County, Washington County, or anywhere in Rhode Island, you need to understand exactly what you’re up against and what can be done about it. This is not the time for general criminal defense. It’s the time for specific, focused advocacy from attorneys who handle serious felony cases involving weapons allegations on a regular basis through Rhode Island gun and weapons charges defense.

What Are Firearm Enhancements and How Does Consecutive Sentencing Work in Rhode Island?

A firearm enhancement is not a standalone charge — it is an additional penalty layered on top of an existing criminal charge because a firearm was involved in the offense. In Rhode Island, firearm enhancements carry mandatory consecutive prison time, meaning the enhancement sentence does not begin until after the defendant has fully served the sentence for the underlying crime. There is no concurrent credit. There is no early release on the enhancement portion.

Rhode Island Enhancement Statute: R.I.G.L. 11-47-3.2

Under Rhode Island General Laws 11-47-3.2, any person who uses a firearm while committing a crime of violence faces a mandatory minimum enhancement of five years in prison, consecutive to the sentence for the underlying offense. For a second offense, the enhancement increases. The statute requires proof that the defendant “used” a firearm in connection with the crime — and the definition of “use” is one of the most contested legal questions in enhancement cases.

Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy has argued in Rhode Island Superior Court that “possession” of a firearm at or near the scene of a crime does not constitute “use” under the statute — a distinction that can mean the difference between 10 years and 15 years in prison. When prosecutors charge enhancements based on proximity rather than active use, there are strong grounds to challenge the enhancement even if the underlying charge stands.

Consecutive vs. Concurrent: Why This Distinction Matters

Most criminal sentences in Rhode Island can run concurrently — meaning the defendant serves multiple sentences at the same time. Firearm enhancements are the exception. Rhode Island law mandates that enhancement time runs consecutively, stacking on top of the primary sentence. This is not a judicial discretion issue — the consecutive requirement is statutory. That is why challenging the enhancement itself, rather than simply negotiating the primary charge, is critical to any defense strategy involving a firearm allegation.

The Math That Changes Everything

Consider the real-world impact of consecutive sentencing on common charge combinations:

“Use” vs. “Possession” in Rhode Island Firearm Enhancement Cases

The single most important legal question in most firearm enhancement cases is whether the defendant “used” a firearm during the commission of a crime — or merely possessed one nearby. Rhode Island’s enhancement statute requires proof of “use,” but prosecutors routinely seek enhancements based on mere possession, proximity, or the fact that a firearm was recovered from the same location as the alleged crime. The distinction between use and possession is where firearm enhancement cases are won or lost.

What Counts as “Use” Under Rhode Island Law?

Rhode Island courts have interpreted “use” to require more than passive possession. Brandishing, displaying, firing, or threatening with a firearm during a crime clearly qualifies. But what about a firearm found in a dresser drawer during the execution of a drug search warrant? What about a holstered weapon that was never drawn? What about a firearm found in the trunk of a car used in a robbery? These gray areas are where Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy concentrates her defense efforts.

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was actively used in connection with the crime — not merely present. Attorney Murphy has challenged enhancements in cases where firearms were found in separate rooms from drug evidence, where weapons were holstered and never displayed during an altercation, and where the timeline of events showed the firearm was not accessible during the alleged offense.

Proximity Is Not Use

Prosecutors often argue that the mere presence of a firearm during a drug transaction or during an assault proves “use” because the weapon could have been deployed. This argument conflates possession with use and ignores the statutory requirement. If you are facing a firearm enhancement based on a weapon that was found near the scene but was never brandished, displayed, or referenced during the alleged crime, there is a viable defense. A felon-in-possession charge may still apply, but the mandatory consecutive enhancement may not.

Federal “Use” Under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)

In federal court, the stakes are even higher. Under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking felony carries a mandatory consecutive sentence of at least 5 years — jumping to 7 years if the firearm was brandished, 10 years if discharged, and 25 years for a second or subsequent conviction. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States established that “use” requires active employment of the firearm, not mere possession. Attorney Murphy applies this federal precedent when defending clients in both federal firearms cases and state enhancement proceedings where federal case law informs the analysis.

What to Do After Arrest on Firearm Enhancement Charges in Rhode Island

If you have been charged with a crime and the prosecution has added a firearm enhancement, the enhancement fundamentally changes the calculation for your entire case. The mandatory consecutive time means that even a favorable resolution on the primary charge can still result in years of additional prison time. This is not a situation where your existing defense attorney can simply “handle it along with everything else” — firearm enhancement defense requires specific expertise in both the enhancement statute and the evidence rules that govern how prosecutors prove firearm involvement.

If You Already Have a Lawyer

Many clients come to Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy and Attorney Matthew T. Marin because they already have counsel on the primary charge but need specialized help on the firearm enhancement. This is a legitimate and common strategy. Enhancement defense often involves technical legal arguments — suppression motions challenging how the firearm was discovered, expert analysis on whether the firearm was “used” versus merely present, and statutory interpretation challenges — that require focused attention separate from the primary defense. Murphy and Marin regularly serve as co-counsel on enhancement issues, working alongside the primary defense attorney to ensure the enhancement is challenged with the same rigor as the underlying charge.

If You Are a Defense Attorney Looking for Co-Counsel

If you represent a client facing stacked firearm enhancements and need co-counsel with specific enhancement experience, contact our office. Attorney Murphy’s practice includes appellate work before the Rhode Island Supreme Court on firearms issues, federal sentencing advocacy under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and suppression litigation targeting the evidentiary foundation of enhancement charges. We are structured to integrate with existing defense teams without disrupting the primary case strategy.

The First 72 Hours

Whether you are a defendant, a family member, or a referring attorney, the critical actions in the first 72 hours are the same: secure bail or challenge detention conditions, preserve evidence (surveillance footage, witness contact information, phone records), and begin building the factual record on the “use” vs. “possession” question. If the firearm was discovered during a traffic stop, the legality of the stop itself must be investigated immediately — before dash cam footage is overwritten or witness memories fade.

How Firearm Enhancement Charges Affect Bail and Pretrial Detention in Rhode Island

When a firearm enhancement is added to an underlying charge, the total potential sentence increases dramatically — and judges consider that total exposure when deciding whether to grant bail and at what amount. A defendant facing 10 years on a robbery charge is a different bail risk than a defendant facing 15 years with a firearm enhancement stacked on top. The higher the potential sentence, the greater the incentive to flee, and the harder the bail argument becomes.

State Court Bail With Enhancement Charges

In Rhode Island Superior Court, bail for cases involving firearm enhancements is typically set higher than for the primary charge alone. Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy prepares bail arguments that address the enhancement directly: presenting evidence that the enhancement may be challengeable (which reduces the realistic sentencing exposure), demonstrating community ties that outweigh flight risk, and proposing conditions of release — GPS monitoring, surrendered passport, regular reporting — that mitigate the court’s concerns. When the primary charge involves assault or armed robbery, the bail hearing is the first opportunity to signal the strength of the enhancement defense.

Federal Detention With 924(c) Enhancements

Federal firearm enhancement cases under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) trigger the Bail Reform Act’s presumption of detention for firearm offenses. The government will argue that the mandatory consecutive sentence — 5 years minimum, 25 years for a second offense — makes the defendant a flight risk. Attorney Murphy has secured pretrial release in federal enhancement cases by assembling comprehensive release packages and presenting judges with specific plans that address every government concern. If the underlying charge also involves drug trafficking, the detention presumption is doubly triggered, making experienced advocacy even more critical.

Conditions of Release

Defendants released on bail in enhancement cases face strict conditions: no firearm possession (obviously), regular check-ins with pretrial services, travel restrictions, and sometimes home confinement with electronic monitoring. Violating any condition triggers immediate revocation. Attorney Murphy and Attorney Marin ensure clients understand every condition from day one and have systems in place to maintain compliance throughout the pretrial period.

How Prosecutors Prove Firearm Enhancement Charges — and Where Their Cases Break Down

To sustain a firearm enhancement, the prosecution must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that a firearm was present, and (2) that the defendant “used” it during the commission of the underlying crime. Each element depends on specific evidence — and each type of evidence has known vulnerabilities that Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy exploits in suppression hearings and at trial.

Weapon Recovery and Chain of Custody

The physical firearm is the prosecution’s most important piece of evidence, but its recovery is often the most legally vulnerable moment in the case. If the firearm was found during a warrantless search, a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, or a search that exceeded the scope of the warrant, the weapon may be suppressed entirely. Even if the search was lawful, chain-of-custody failures — gaps in evidence logging, improper storage, missing documentation — can undermine the reliability of the evidence. Attorney Murphy has challenged weapon evidence where the firearm was allegedly recovered from a shared vehicle but no forensic testing connected the defendant to the weapon.

Eyewitness Identification and Co-Defendant Statements

Prosecutors frequently rely on eyewitness testimony or co-defendant statements to establish that the defendant “used” the firearm during the offense. Both are among the least reliable forms of evidence. Eyewitness identification is subject to well-documented error rates, especially in high-stress situations. Co-defendant statements are inherently suspect because cooperating witnesses receive sentencing benefits for their testimony — creating a powerful incentive to exaggerate or fabricate. Attorney Murphy cross-examines cooperating witnesses on their plea agreements, the benefits they received, and inconsistencies in their statements.

Surveillance Video and Digital Evidence

Video footage can be powerful evidence of firearm use — or it can be powerful evidence that no firearm was visible or brandished. Attorney Murphy retains independent video analysis experts to examine surveillance footage frame by frame, looking for evidence that contradicts the prosecution’s characterization of events. Cell site location data, text messages, and social media content may also be relevant — either supporting or undermining the timeline the prosecution has constructed. When digital evidence was obtained through a search warrant that also produced carrying-without-a-license charges, the legality of the warrant affects all evidence derived from it.

Expert Analysis on Firearm Functionality

In some enhancement cases, whether the firearm was functional matters. An inoperable firearm may not support an enhancement under certain statutory interpretations. Attorney Murphy has retained firearms experts to examine recovered weapons and testify about their condition at the time of recovery — establishing that a weapon was non-functional, unloaded, or incapable of firing undermines the prosecution’s theory that it was “used” as a weapon during the offense.

Defense Strategies for Firearm Enhancement Charges in Rhode Island

Defending against a firearm enhancement requires a different approach than defending against the primary charge. The enhancement has its own elements, its own evidentiary requirements, and its own legal vulnerabilities. Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy and Attorney Matthew T. Marin build enhancement-specific defense strategies that attack the enhancement independently from the underlying offense.

Challenging the Nexus Between the Firearm and the Offense

The enhancement statute requires a connection between the firearm and the crime. If the firearm was in a different room, a different vehicle, or a different location from where the alleged crime occurred, the nexus may be too weak to sustain the enhancement. Attorney Murphy has successfully argued that temporal and spatial separation between the firearm and the offense defeats the enhancement even when the underlying charge survives — because the enhancement requires proof that the weapon was used “during” and “in connection with” the crime, not merely that the defendant possessed a weapon at some point.

Suppression of the Firearm Evidence

If the firearm is suppressed, the enhancement collapses — regardless of the strength of the underlying charge. Attorney Murphy files motions to suppress under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution, challenging the legality of the search, seizure, or stop that produced the weapon. In cases where law enforcement discovered the firearm during a traffic stop without adequate reasonable suspicion or during a home search that exceeded the warrant’s scope, suppression is the most direct path to eliminating the enhancement.

Challenging “Use” as Defined by the Statute

As discussed in the use vs. possession section above, the statutory definition of “use” is the enhancement’s most exploitable weakness. Attorney Murphy builds fact-specific arguments showing that the firearm was possessed but not used — that it was holstered, unloaded, inaccessible, or otherwise disconnected from the commission of the crime. This defense does not require proving innocence on the primary charge; it requires proving that the firearm element does not meet the enhancement standard.

Negotiating Enhancement Dismissal in Plea Agreements

In many cases, the most realistic path to avoiding consecutive time is negotiating the dismissal of the enhancement as part of a plea agreement on the primary charge. Prosecutors use enhancements as leverage — but that leverage works both ways. When Attorney Murphy can demonstrate weaknesses in the enhancement evidence (questionable search, weak nexus, use vs. possession arguments), the prosecution has an incentive to drop the enhancement in exchange for a resolution on the underlying charge. This negotiation requires specific knowledge of how enhancement evidence works — and a credible threat of taking the enhancement to trial if the offer is inadequate.

Sentencing Mitigation When Enhancement Survives

If the enhancement cannot be dismissed at trial or through negotiation, the defense shifts to mitigation. While the consecutive requirement is statutory, the length of the enhancement sentence may have a range. Attorney Murphy prepares detailed sentencing memoranda presenting mitigating factors: the defendant’s role in the offense, mental health history, family obligations, rehabilitative efforts, and the proportionality of the total sentence. With firearm prosecutions surging statewide — 498 cases in 2025 versus 415 in 2024, judges are seeing more enhancement cases and are receptive to mitigation arguments that distinguish the defendant from the most serious offenders.

Federal Firearm Enhancements Under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)

Federal firearm enhancements under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) are among the most severe penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Unlike Rhode Island’s state enhancement statute, the federal version carries escalating mandatory minimums that are staggering in their severity — and every day of the enhancement sentence runs consecutive to the sentence for the underlying federal crime.

924(c) Mandatory Consecutive Penalties

These penalties are mandatory — the judge cannot impose a shorter sentence and cannot order the enhancement to run concurrently with the underlying sentence. The only way to avoid a 924(c) mandatory consecutive sentence is to defeat the charge entirely or negotiate its dismissal.

What Counts as a “Crime of Violence” Under 924(c)?

The definition of “crime of violence” under 924(c) has been significantly narrowed by recent Supreme Court decisions. The residual clause — which previously allowed prosecutors to categorize a wide range of offenses as crimes of violence — was struck down in United States v. Davis (2019). Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy evaluates every federal enhancement case to determine whether the underlying offense actually qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the current, narrower definition. If it does not, the 924(c) charge fails as a matter of law.

Defending Against 924(c) in the District of Rhode Island

Attorney Murphy is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and has defended clients facing 924(c) enhancements in federal court. Federal enhancement defense requires mastery of the federal sentencing guidelines, the ability to challenge the factual basis for the enhancement at sentencing, and the willingness to take the enhancement to trial when the government’s offer is unacceptable. Many federal defense attorneys accept 924(c) charges as inevitable — Attorney Murphy does not. When felon-in-possession charges accompany a 924(c) count, the combined exposure can exceed 20 years, making specialized defense even more critical.