Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Applicant Eddy Guerrero appealed the denial of his application for postconviction relief. His sole contention on appeal was that the hearing justice erred in holding that his trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel prior to and during Applicant's plea of nolo contendere. Specifically, Applicant contended: (1) that his counsel failed to obtain an interpreter for him at the time of the hearing on his motion to suppress certain evidence and at the time of his eventual plea; (2) that, prior to his execution of the plea form, his counsel failed to properly explain to him the essential elements of the offense to which he ultimately pled nolo contendere; (3) that his trial counsel failed to meet with him in a setting conducive to meaningful attorney-client communications; (4) that, by not conducting a sufficient investigation, his counsel failed to properly prepare for the suppression hearing; and (5) that the hearing justice erred in failing to address the prejudice component of the analysis relative to ineffective assistance of counsel allegations that is described in "Strickland v. Washington," (466 U.S. 668 (1984)). Upon review, the Supreme Court found none of Applicant's arguments on appeal to have merit, and affirmed the superior court's judgment.

At the end of a trial held in Kent County Superior Court, a jury found the defendant, James Cook guilty of twenty-two counts ranging from first-degree sexual assault to identity fraud. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial justice committed reversible error in denying his motion for a mistrial after the jury heard testimony that he had been on probation and also in admitting evidence of other prior sexual misconduct. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant, Kenneth Viveiros appealed his conviction on four counts of simple assault against three inmates at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), occurring while the defendant was employed as a lieutenant at the ACI. On appeal, defendant asserted that the trial justice: (1) abused his discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendant, Captain Gualtar Botas; (2) abused his discretion in granting the state's motion in limine, precluding defense testimony from an inmate; (3) erred by giving improper jury instructions; and (4) erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence. Upon thorough review, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions.

Defendant Raymond McWilliams was found guilty on one count of first-degree robbery and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon. In light of his "impressive" criminal history, the trial justice sentenced him to life in prison for first-degree robbery, to be served consecutively to eleven-and-one-half years that previously had been executed because he violated probation on a previously imposed sentence on a prior second-degree murder conviction. Defendant was also sentenced to life in prison for the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the robbery and the previously imposed probation-violation sentence. Because he qualified as a habitual offender the trial justice imposed an additional ten years imprisonment to run consecutively to the previously imposed sentences. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant asserted that the trial justice erred by: (1) providing a supplemental jury instruction that contradicted Rhode Island law; (2) refusing to recuse from presiding as the trial justice because of comments he had made during a joint probation-violation hearing and bail hearing; (3) admitting into evidence defendant's prior conviction for second-degree murder; (4) denying his motion for acquittal; and (5) denying his motion for a new trial. After review, the Court concluded that Defendant's arguments were without merit, and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

In early 2008, over the course of a lengthy jury trial, the state presented approximately thirty witnesses, including known criminals, against Defendant Michael Ciresi who was once a decorated North Providence police officer. Defendant was charged with multiple counts ranging from the receipt of stolen goods to burglary. Ultimately Defendant was convicted on all but one of the counts with which he was charged. Defendant appealed his convictions, contending that the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting numerous instances of Defendant's uncharged misconduct under Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Defendant also challenges the trial justice's decision to allow the joinder of two separate indictments against him, as well as the trial justice's subsequent denial of his motion to sever the indictments for trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Superior Court: "[b]ased on the defendant's failure to demonstrate any basis upon which [the Court] might conclude that he suffered prejudice arising from the consolidation of the indictments against him for trial," the Court held that the trial justice's joinder and denial of Defendant's motion to sever did not prejudice his constitutional right to a fair trial. The Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial justice and affirmed his rulings.

Applicant David Higham appealed a superior court judgment that denied his second application for postconviction relief. In 2000, a jury found that Applicant committed two acts of first-degree child molestation against the seven-year-old daughter of his step son. Applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of forty years on each count with twenty years to serve and twenty suspended with probation. In 2006, Applicant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent him, but counsel later withdrew, noting in his motion that Applicant's application was "wholly frivolous" and without merit. Even though the motion to withdraw was pending, counsel appeared with applicant at a hearing in Superior Court. At the conclusion of the hearing, a stipulation, signed by both applicant and his attorney was entered on December 5, 2008. The stipulation provided that the motion for postconviction relief would be dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a reduction in sentence approved by the hearing justice. In 2009, Applicatn appeared before the parole board seeking early release. The board denied his but because he refused to acknowledge his crime or complete a sex-offender-treatment program. Applicant then filed another pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging that parole had been unlawfully denied; jury misconduct, and that he was actually innocent. Finding that none of the issues raised on appeal had merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's denial of Applicant's application for postconviction relief.

Applicant Randy Anderson appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Applicant contended that the hearing justice erred by (1) deeming his claim of prosecutorial misconduct to be procedurally barred; (2) finding no discovery violation on the part of the state for failing to produce certain medical records; and (3) determining that the medical records would have been “of little or no value to the factfinder in the context of [Anderson’s] trial.” This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on January 24, 2012, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After carefully considering the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that this appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. Finding no error with the hearing justice's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

On October 31, 2004, three-year-old Thomas J. Wright died as a result of extensive injuries that tragically had been inflicted upon him by his aunt and her boyfriend after they returned home from a night of drinking. Defendant Katherine Bunnell was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and of conspiracy to commit the offense of murder. As a result, she was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) for the murder conviction and ten years to serve at the ACI for the conspiracy conviction. Defendant appealed her conviction on two grounds: (1) that the trial justice erred by excluding from evidence certain portions of an interview given by her boyfriend, Gilbert Delestre, at the Woonsocket Police Department the day before TJ died; and (2) the trial justice erred in denying her motion for a new trial. Finding no error in the trial justice's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Jeffrey Alston (alias John Doe) appealed his conviction for conspiracy to break and enter, breaking and entering of a dwelling, and assault with a dangerous weapon. He also appealed the denial of his motions for a new trial. On appeal, Defendant contended that his right to confrontation under the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions was violated by the evidentiary rulings of the trial justice, that his right to cross-examine one of the state’s witnesses was unduly restricted, and that the trial justice erred in refusing to pass the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

Defendant Hamlet M. Lopez appealed a Superior Court judgment of conviction for first-degree murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice erred by (1) allowing DNA evidence to be introduced against him through the testimony of a laboratory supervisor and the admission of an allele table documenting the DNA profiles of the defendant and the decedent; (2) admitting evidence of his prior instances of violence; (3) failing to instruct the jury adequately about prior inconsistent statements; and (4) imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.