Opinion ID: 1996009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: [P]ost-conviction relief is available to a defendant convicted of a crime who contends that his original conviction or sentence violated rights that the state or federal constitutions secured to him. Ballard v. State, 983 A.2d 264, 266 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005)); see also G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1(a)(1) (providing statutory right to postconviction relief for constitutional violations). When this Court reviews a ruling on an application for postconviction relief, we afford great deference to the motion justice's findings of fact. Moniz v. State, 933 A.2d 691, 694 (R.I.2007) (citing Burke v. State, 925 A.2d 890, 892 (R.I. 2007)). [A]bsent clear error or a determination that the motion justice neglected or misconceived the evidence, this Court will uphold a postconviction relief decision. Id. (citing Reise v. State, 913 A.2d 1052, 1055 (R.I.2007)). However, [t]his Court will    `review de novo any post-conviction relief decision involving questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an alleged violation of an applicant's constitutional rights.' Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005) (quoting Taylor v. Wall, 821 A.2d 685, 688 (R.I.2003)).