Opinion ID: 2298858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Excessive Reliance on the Shatney Memoranda

Text: [T]he post-conviction relief statute provides that the court may dismiss an application on the pleadings if, after reviewing the application, the answer or motion, and the record, the court determines that it lacks merit. Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130, 133 (R.I.2000) (emphasis added); see § 10-9.1-6(b); see also Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264, 1265 (R.I.1998). However, as recently echoed in State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I.2011), the appointed counsel's determination of frivolousness    would not necessarily warrant a court determination of frivolousness   . Id. at 523 (quoting Shatney, 755 A.2d at 133). In this case, the basis for the court's finding that applicant's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit was admittedly based on counsel's memoranda and the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in State v. Tassone.  The court's decision cites several facts that lead to the inevitable conclusion that the hearing justice arrived at her determination after reading and relying on counsel's Shatney memoranda. [11] For example, the court found that trial counsel retained the services of a DNA expert, commissioned a psychiatric evaluation of Tassone, aggressively attempted to prevent the prosecution from introducing [applicant's] incriminating statements into the record, [12] called witnesses to testify on applicant's behalf, and aggressively cross-examined the state's witnesses. However, it is unclear to us how the hearing justice was able to independently determine that no genuine issues of material fact existed surrounding applicant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without having the benefit of a trial transcript [13] or without conducting an evidentiary hearing. It is also noteworthy that the hearing justice never asked Tassone whether he wanted to present any testimonial evidence to support his arguments. Cf. Brown, 32 A.3d at 905 (in which the hearing justice offered the applicant an opportunity to present testimonial and documentary evidence but the applicant declined to do so). In our opinion, the hearing justice relied excessively on counsel's Shatney memoranda when she found that the applicant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was wholly without merit. Our concern is heightened by the fact that this was the first postconviction relief application filed by the applicant, who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In light of the severity of this sentence, we hold, therefore, that from this point forward, an evidentiary hearing is required in the first application for postconviction relief in all cases involving applicants sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.