Opinion ID: 2556812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Hidden Camera

Text: Laurence's final argument for postconviction relief stems from his allegation that a camera hidden in his cell at the ACI taped, recorded, or took photographs of his law work. Laurence believes that this intrusion into his privacy was occurring throughout his trial and that the DOC provided the state with photographs of his work product as a means to subvert his defense strategy. At the postconviction-relief hearing and now on appeal, Laurence argues that he was entitled to depose various police officers and ACI guards to prove his allegations. For its part, the Shatney memorandum indicated that this spying claim was the only one in Laurence's application that had any traction, but it simply recommended that Laurence should be deposed. The trial justice, after reviewing Laurence's affidavit and the other evidence presented by the state, determined that Laurence was not entitled to take depositions of any other individuals and therefore could not survive the state's motion for summary disposition. We concur. Laurence cites numerous cases of the Rhode Island Supreme Court for the proposition that an applicant for postconviction relief is permitted to explore the validity of his claims by taking depositions and hiring private investigators. We note that a year prior to the postconviction-relief hearing, the trial justice set aside funds for Laurence to hire an investigator, but he apparently did not take advantage of that opportunity. As for his deposition requests, Laurence's catalogue of inapposite caselaw [14] does not convince this Court to charter his fishing expedition. Our postconviction-relief statute is clear that pretrial discovery proceedings shall be available only upon order of the court. Section 10-9.1-7. Based on the dearth of evidence before the trial justice and Laurence's abdication of the investigator funds, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial justice to conclude that Laurence had not open[ed] the door to deposition discovery. See Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264, 1266 (R.I.1998) (Contrary to [the defendant's] assertions, the trial justice is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing [on postconviction relief] if, from [the defendant's] reply, the trial justice determines that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that, therefore, no need for an evidentiary hearing exists.). In the face of the state's attorney attesting on the record that she never received or used these alleged materials in her case-in-chief and the affidavit of Newberg, the law enforcement agent for the prosecution of this case, who likewise affirmed that he never received or transferred pictures or videotape of Laurence to the state, we must agree with the trial justice that there is not a shred of credible evidence    relative to the use of videotaping or any other intrusion into [Laurence's] preparations. Laurence's own conclusory, self-serving affidavit stating that spying was occurring cannot overcome the state's evidence and the trial justice's observations that no materials depicting Laurence in his cell were ever provided or used in the prosecution of this case. Accordingly, it was not clear error for the trial justice to dismiss his claim.