Court Opinion

ID: 9879442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:17:28.377918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:53.912827
License: Public Domain

Justice Indeglia, concurring. Having dissented in Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012), I continue to believe that the proper vehicle for the requirement of an evidentiary hearing in a life without parole postconviction relief setting is through legislative amendment to G.L. 1956 chapter 9.1 of title 10. Nevertheless, as long as the majority mandate in Tas-sone remains, the Superior Court is bound to follow it. “It is well settled that an opinion of this [C]ourt declares the law in Rhode Island and that law must be followed by the lower courts of our judicial system, regardless of whether that court or any of its judges agree or disagree with our holding.” University of Rhode Island v. Department of Employment and Training, 691 A.2d 552, 555 (R.I. 1997). Accordingly, I concur in today’s opinion. Chief Justice Suttell did not participate.