Opinion ID: 2076850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Trial Counsel's Performance with Respect to the Sentencing Proceeding

Text: Mr. Page contends that the postconviction relief hearing justice erred in finding no ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his representation at sentencing. The applicant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate and to highlight for the benefit of the sentencing justice certain items contained within the state's presentence report, which items applicant contends would have had a mitigating effect. The applicant specifically points to evidence relating to (1) his learning disability; (2) his behavioral disorder; and (3) his history of substance abuse. He further alleges error in the fact that trial counsel did not bring to the attention of the sentencing court reports to the effect that he had made progress while serving a sentence at the Rhode Island Training School. [22] Trial counsel testified at the postconviction relief hearing that, in addition to reviewing the presentence report which was submitted to the court, he interviewed his client's family members and concluded that his stepfather would be the person best suited to testify on Mr. Page's behalf at the time of sentencing. Mr. Page's stepfather did in fact testify at the sentencing hearing concerning the tragic situations that Mr. Page had experienced throughout his life. His stepfather informed the trial justice that Mr. Page's father and grandfather had both died from AIDS as a result of having used intravenous drugs. He also testified that Mr. Page experienced great difficulty in expressing his emotions with respect to those losses. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Page's trial counsel also vigorously cross-examined the prosecution's sole witness viz., the keeper of the records of the Adult Correctional Institutions, who testified as to several rules infractions committed by Mr. Page during his incarcerations at that penal institution. [23] Trial counsel concluded his advocacy at the sentencing hearing by making a plea to the trial justice for leniency. In doing so, trial counsel highlighted the fact that Mr. Page had stepped to the plate and had accepted responsibility for Sylvester Gardiner's murder. Trial counsel also highlighted the fact that Mr. Page had waived his right to a jury trial and had agreed to the presentation of stipulated evidence, thereby relieving Mr. Gardiner's family from having to endure the presentation of the horrific evidence relative to the murder of Mr. Gardiner that would have taken place during a jury trial or even at a jury-waived trial if Mr. Page had not stipulated to the prosecution's evidence. Trial counsel also emphasized Mr. Page's young age, and he implored the trial justice to give Mr. Page some hope by sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. [24] In support of his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase, applicant contends that trial counsel should have investigated favorable evaluations made by doctors who had assessed him while he was in residence at the Rhode Island Training School. The applicant further contends that his trial counsel should have more thoroughly highlighted the fact that his client had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist at the Training School as suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Finally, Mr. Page contends that his trial counsel should have informed the sentencing court that, in 1990, when he was approximately fifteen years old, his probation counselor had determined that he was operating at a fourth grade level in terms of intellectual function. It is vitally important to note that the presentence report, which was made available to the trial justice before he imposed sentence, contained all of the above-referenced information that Mr. Page contends trial counsel should have highlighted during the sentencing hearing. We further note that the trial justice stated on the record that he had reviewed the presentence report. The presentence report contained portions of Mr. Page's juvenile records (which included progress reports that were prepared on each of the three occasions when he was sentenced to the Training School) as well as the mental health diagnoses which were the product of the clinical and psychiatric evaluations that he underwent while at the Training School. The progress reports from the Training School also included a comprehensive description of Mr. Page's home life, including the information that both his mother and father had used illegal substances and that his father and grandfather had both died of AIDS as a result of their intravenous drug use. In addition, Mr. Page's juvenile record indicated that he himself had used alcohol and marijuana; it also indicated that he had been functioning as a student at an intellectual level that was several years behind that of his peers. It should be noted, however, that in addition to the mitigating information emphasized by applicant, his juvenile record also details his long history of violent behavior and his difficulty in controlling his anger. (That history includes reports concerning Mr. Page's having assaulted another resident in the Training School; having assaulted staff members at the Training School; having been expelled from school for allegedly sexually assaulting another student; and having used violence as his primary coping mechanism.) The portions of Mr. Page's juvenile record that were before the trial justice detailed his several contacts with the Rhode Island Family Courtcontacts that began in 1989, when he was thirteen years old. His juvenile record also contains notations by psychiatrists who evaluated him and who then stated that he had a long history of poor socialization and antisocial behavior, [and] poor impulse control. This psychiatric evaluation further stated that Mr. Page [could not] function in the community. We recognize that trial counsel has an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). However, after careful review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing and of the documents that were made available to the sentencing court, we are unable to conclude that the postconviction relief hearing justice erred when he found that Mr. Page's counsel had done what he could to minimize [Mr. Page's] exposure at sentencing. We also perceive no error in the postconviction relief hearing justice's observations that trial counsel had made good tactical decisions with respect to sentencing and that counsel had argued well against the imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. We further note that applicant has failed to point to any significant mitigating evidence that was not provided to the trial justice through the presentence report; he has also failed to bring to our attention any additional information that might have been obtained through further investigation. The trial justice, after having reviewed the presentence report, stated that [w]ords can't capture the essence of [Mr. Page's] uncontrollable, violent nature. The hearing justice additionally stated at the postconviction relief hearing that the evidence relative to the crime scene and the autopsy was the worst [he had] seen in seventeen years on the bench, the worst, absolute worst. Moreover, during that postconviction relief hearing, the hearing justice expressed doubt that trial counsel could have presented any evidence that would have persuaded him not to sentence Mr. Page to life without the possibility of parole. In light of the several findings of fact made by the postconviction relief hearing justice, which we have held to be not clearly erroneous, and after our own independent review of the record, it is our conclusion that Mr. Page was not deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing.