Opinion ID: 1542223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reassignment

Text: The applicant contends that his second application for postconviction relief should have been considered by the trial justice who accepted his Alford plea in 1979. We disagree. Rule 2.3(d)(4) of the Superior Court Rules of Practice provides as follows: Applications for post-conviction relief shall be assigned by the clerk to the formal and special cause calendar. The justice assigned to the calendar shall submit the application, as the case may be, for disposition by the justice who presided at the trial of the applicant. In any case where the trial justice is no longer a member of the court, the justice assigned to the calendar shall submit the application for disposition, on a rotational basis, to the justices assigned to the trial calendar. We construe the Rule's reference to the justice who presided at the trial of the applicant to mean the justice who presided at the trial concerning which the applicant is aggrieved  which in this case would be the 1988 trial that resulted in applicant's sentencing as an habitual offender. That is exactly what happened in this case: both of Mr. Mattatall's postconviction relief applications were, in fact, assigned to the justice who presided over the murder trial and who sentenced applicant pursuant to his conviction for second-degree murder at that trial, from which sentence (specifically the additional sentence imposed in view of applicant's status as an habitual offender) applicant currently seeks relief. Even if, as applicant contends, his second application for postconviction relief should have been heard by the trial justice who accepted his Alford plea in 1979, Rule 2.3(d)(4) clearly and unambiguously states that, if a trial justice is no longer a member of the court, then the application should be assigned to another justice of the Superior Court. That is precisely the situation with which we are now confronted. Having thereafter assumed a different judicial office, the Superior Court justice who presided at the time of the 1979 Alford plea was no longer a member of that court at the time when applicant's second application was filed. Accordingly, we reject applicant's contention as it is wholly meritless.