Opinion ID: 2076850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Appellate Counsel's Performance with Respect to the Direct Appeal

Text: We next consider Mr. Page's contention that his appellate attorney did not provide effective assistance of counsel in view of the fact that he failed to argue before this Court that Mr. Page was statutorily entitled to de novo consideration by us of his sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The pertinent statute, G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-5, provides as follows: The defendant shall have the right to appeal a sentence of life imprisonment without parole to the [S]upreme [C]ourt of the state in accordance with the applicable rules of court. In considering an appeal of a sentence, the court, after review of the transcript of the proceedings below, may, in its discretion, ratify the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment without parole or may reduce the sentence to life imprisonment. We understand this statute to indicate that this Court should conduct a direct review of the facts of this case (to the extent that they are reflected in the transcript)a role that is highly unusual for this Court to play, but one which we will undertake in deference to this unique statutory provision. Although the statute does not employ the term de novo in referring to this Court's review process, we have consistently conducted our review of the life without parole issue in a de novo manner. See, e.g., State v. Quinlan, 921 A.2d 96, 112 (R.I.2007) (stating that, with respect to § 12-19.2-5, [o]ur review is de novo ); see also State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222, 235 (R.I.2008) (In conducting our de novo review of the sentence, we must don the robes of a trial justice   .) (Internal quotation marks omitted.); State v. Motyka, 893 A.2d 267, 281 (R.I.2006) ([T]he decision to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is    reviewed by this Court in a de novo manner.). While appellate counsel did appeal (albeit without success) the trial court's imposition of a ten-year concurrent sentence, [25] he failed to make the further argument that a person sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, such as Mr. Page, has the statutory right to have the members of this Court determine in a de novo manner whether that sentence is appropriate. In our judgment, the failure of applicant's appellate attorney to seek de novo review by this Court of the issue of the appropriateness of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The statutory right to such de novo consideration by the members of this Court is clear. Thus, counsel's performance was deficient in his failure to raise Mr. Page's statutory right to have his sentence reviewed by this Court. See Chalk, 949 A.2d at 399. We further perceive that Mr. Page was prejudiced by his appellate counsel's failure to raise before this Court the contention that he had the right to that review. We view Mr. Page's statutory right to a review pursuant to § 12-19.2-5 to be not only meritorious, but `clearly stronger' than those issues that actually were raised on appeal. See Chalk, 949 A.2d at 399 (quoting Robbins, 528 U.S. at 288, 120 S.Ct. 746).