Supreme Court

No. 2016-166-M.P. 

 

Joseph A. J. Paiva :

v. :

Christopher J. Parella, Chief of Police for 

the City of East Providence.

:

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 Tel. 222-3258 of any typographical or other 

formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is 

published. 

January 16, 2018
- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2016-166-M.P.

Joseph A. J. Paiva :

v. :

Christopher J. Parella, Chief of Police for 

the City of East Providence.

:

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.

O P I N I O N

Justice Flaherty, for the Court. The petitioner, Joseph A. J. Paiva, seeks review of a 

decision of the respondent, Christopher J. Parella, the Chief of Police for the City of East 

Providence, denying Paiva’s application for a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon. 

Paiva filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, which we granted on October 25, 

2016. This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to 

appear and show cause why the issues raised in this petition should not summarily be decided. 

After considering the parties’ arguments and after reviewing the record, we conclude that cause 

has not been shown and that this petition may be decided without further briefing or argument. 

For the reasons discussed herein, we quash Chief Parella’s decision denying Paiva’s application 

and direct Chief Parella to issue, within ninety days of the date of this opinion, a new decision 

setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in conformity with this Court’s holding in 

Gadomski v. Tavares, 113 A.3d 387 (R.I. 2015). 
- 2 -

I

Facts and Travel

For purposes of resolving the issues presently before the Court, we need discuss only the 

following facts. In October 2015, Paiva, a resident of the Town of Lincoln, applied to Parella, 

East Providence’s chief of police, for a permit to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to G.L. 

1956 § 11-47-11.1 In a letter accompanying his application, Paiva explained that he required a 

concealed-carry permit because, as both a firearms collector and an operator of an import/export 

business, he was regularly exposed to large sums of cash. In his application, Paiva also declared 

that he already had obtained concealed-carry permits in two other states. It is significant that, 

when responding to questions set forth in the application, Paiva said that he had never been 

treated for mental illness. Similarly, when inquiry was made as to whether he had ever been 

arrested, Paiva responded, “No.”2 When prompted on the application as to whether he had 

previously applied for a concealed-carry permit from either the Attorney General or another city 

 1 General Laws 1956 § 11-47-11 provides, in pertinent part, that:

“The licensing authorities of any city or town shall, upon 

application of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over 

having a bona fide residence or place of business within the city or 

town, or of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having 

a bona fide residence within the United States and a license or 

permit to carry a pistol or revolver concealed upon his or her 

person issued by the authorities of any other state or subdivision of 

the United States, issue a license or permit to the person to carry 

concealed upon his or her person a pistol or revolver everywhere 

within this state for four (4) years from date of issue, if it appears 

that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her 

person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a 

pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so 

licensed.” Section 11-47-11(a). 

2 Paiva then qualified his answer: “Never been arrested pursuant to [G.L. 1956 §] 12-1.3-4.” 

Section 12-1.3-4 relates to the effect of the expungement of records of conviction. 
- 3 -

or town, Paiva answered that he had been granted a permit from the Attorney General but that it 

had expired and that his application to the Town of North Smithfield had been denied. 

In a letter dated January 25, 2016, Parella informed Paiva that his application had been 

denied. Parella’s letter was brief. He wrote:

“Dear Mr. * * * Paiva,

“This letter will serve as formal written notification that after 

careful consideration your application to carry a concealed weapon 

has been denied. The responsibility for the issuance of a concealed 

weapon permit by a police chief is an important responsibility that 

requires close scrutiny and a real demonstration of need by the 

applicant. I realize you have been a good law abiding citizen, 

however the issuance of a permit to carry and the requirements 

involving the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon 

requires more than just good character. It also requires a proper 

and true need. 

“Do [sic] to the fact that you do not live or have a business in East 

Providence, I urge you to apply through the Lincoln Police Dept. 

or the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office. If I can be of 

further assistance in the future, please let me know.”

In the order granting Paiva’s certiorari petition, this Court directed the parties to address 

“whether the petitioner can properly claim entitlement to the issuance of a license under § 11-47-

11 in light of the petitioner’s past assaultive behavior requiring the intervention of Lincoln Police 

and in light of the Attorney General’s revocation, for reasons constituting just cause, of the 

license his office issued to the petitioner * * *.” 

II

Standard of Review

“It is well settled that ‘[o]ur review of a case on certiorari is limited to an examination of 

the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.’” Gadomski, 113 A.3d at 389 

(quoting Cruz v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 108 A.3d 992, 995 (R.I. 2015)). 
- 4 -

“Our task is to ‘scour the record to discern whether any legally competent evidence supports the 

lower tribunal’s decision and whether the decision-maker committed any reversible errors of law 

in the matter under review.’” Preservation Society of Newport County v. City Council of 

Newport, 155 A.3d 688, 692 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Cullen v. Town Council of Lincoln, 893 A.2d 

239, 243-44 (R.I. 2006)). 

III

Discussion

On certiorari, Paiva requests that this Court exercise its inherent supervisory authority to 

reverse Parella’s decision and order that he be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In 

seeking that remedy, Paiva first argues that Parella applied the wrong statutory standard when he 

denied Paiva’s application. According to Paiva, Parella’s reference to the requirement that Paiva 

demonstrate “a proper and true need” for a permit sounds in the language of § 11-47-18, which 

applies to the Attorney General, not § 11-47-11, which applies to municipalities, including the 

City of East Providence. Paiva also takes issue with the nature of Parella’s decision letter, 

characterizing it as mere boilerplate and lacking the findings of fact and conclusions of law 

required pursuant to this Court’s holding in Gadomski. Additionally, Paiva alleges that Parella 

erroneously supplemented the record before this Court with documents—including police reports 

from the Town of Lincoln, one of which was prompted by an alert from a mental health 

professional—that reveal unfavorable information about him. Because Parella issued his denial 

letter nearly eleven months prior to receiving those documents, Paiva contends that they are not 

properly before this Court and should not be used to supplement Parella’s decision letter.3

 

 3 We denied Paiva’s motion to strike those documents from the record before us on March 6, 

2017. 
- 5 -

According to Paiva, the only adequate remedy here is outright reversal of Parella’s decision and 

the issuance of a permit. 

We agree that Parella’s decision letter falls woefully short of our clear directive in 

Gadomski. As we explained in that case, “[a] local licensing authority need not write a decision 

rivaling War and Peace * * * in length, but its decision must still address the salient reasoning 

for the denial of a license.” Gadomski, 113 A.3d at 391. Parella’s cursory letter, which contains 

only “bare, rote conclusions[,]” falls well short of that standard.4 Id. 

However, we are of the opinion that a remand, not a reversal, is the appropriate remedy 

here. Especially in light of the information contained in the documents that Parella submitted to 

this Court, a new decision is warranted. As alluded to in our order granting Paiva’s petition for 

certiorari, the reports from the Lincoln Police Department reveal that the applicant has a history 

of “past assaultive behavior requiring the intervention of Lincoln Police * * *.” That behavior 

was brought to our attention by the documents that Parella attached to a filing in this Court. 

Although it seems clear that Parella did not have those documents when he issued his decision 

letter, and thus could not have relied on them, we cannot, in good faith, ignore what they 

disclose. Our review of those documents reveals a troubling history of events that, at the very 

least, call into question Paiva’s suitability to carry a concealed weapon. 

In addition to an arguable pattern of “assaultive behavior,” the documents also unveil that 

Paiva was, at best, evasive in answering the questions posed to him on his concealed-carry 

application. As noted above, on his application, Paiva indicated that his permit from the 

 4 We reiterate that there is a distinction between the requirements of § 11-47-18, which apply to 

the Attorney General, and those of § 11-47-11, which apply to cities and towns—including the 

City of East Providence: “[d]emonstration of a proper showing of need, which is a requirement 

under § 11-47-18, is not a component of § 11-47-11.” Gadomski v. Tavares, 113 A.3d 387, 392

(R.I. 2015. 
- 6 -

Attorney General to carry a concealed weapon had “expired.” Yet, contrary to that assertion, 

Paiva’s permit was revoked by the Attorney General in October 2013.5 Paiva provided an 

equally evasive response to a question regarding whether he had ever been arrested. Paiva’s 

less-than-candid answers on his application, coupled with his past behavior, certainly raise doubt 

as to his suitability to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in this state. Nonetheless, a 

determination as to his suitability requires findings of fact, best left to the licensing authority—

here, Chief Parella—and not this Court.6 See State v. Storms, 112 R.I. 121, 127-28, 308 A.2d 

463, 466-67 (1973). 

IV

Conclusion

Accordingly, Chief Parella’s decision denying Paiva’s application for a permit or license 

to carry a concealed weapon is quashed. Chief Parella is directed to issue a new decision setting 

forth findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with our holding in Gadomski within

ninety days of the date of this opinion. Although the focus of our opinion today is on the 

inadequacy of Chief Parella’s decision letter, we emphasize that the new facts brought to light on 

certiorari may be considered in rendering a new decision. Moreover, as we held in Gadomski, if 

Paiva “is aggrieved by the new decision, he may file an amended petition for writ of certiorari 

 5 Although Paiva appealed that revocation, this Court dismissed that appeal as procedurally 

improper on October 24, 2016. 

6 We pause to note that the language set forth in § 11-47-11 places the burden of determining 

suitability on the licensing authorities of the cities and towns: usually, police chiefs. See State v. 

Storms, 112 R.I. 121, 127-28, 308 A.2d 463, 466-67 (1973). Under Rhode Island’s current 

statutory scheme for concealed-carry permits, an applicant who has been issued a license or 

permit by another state can apply to any city or town in this state for a permit to carry a 

concealed weapon, regardless of whether that applicant demonstrates a tangible connection to 

that city or town. See § 11-47-11. In our judgment, the statute requires near-Herculean efforts 

by police chiefs to determine an applicant’s suitability, especially where, as here, a resident with 

no tangible connection to the City of East Providence applied to that city for a concealed-carry 

permit. 
- 7 -

within sixty days of the issuance of the decision. In that event, no additional filing fee will be 

required.” Gadomski, 113 A.3d at 392-93. 
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case Joseph A. J. Paiva v. Christopher J. Parella, Chief of 

Police for the City of East Providence. 

Case Number No. 2016-166-M.P.

Date Opinion Filed January 16, 2018

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and 

Indeglia, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice Francis X. Flaherty 

Source of Appeal N/A

Judicial Officer From Lower Court N/A

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Petitioner:

David J. Strachman, Esq.

For Respondent:

Robert E. Craven, Esq.

Gregory S. Dias, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2016)