Barboza v. State, 84-40-C

Decision Date14 November 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-40-C,84-40-C
Citation484 A.2d 881
PartiesWayne BARBOZA v. STATE. A.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This is an appeal from the dismissal by a Superior Court justice of a petition for postconviction relief that was filed pursuant to the pertinent provisions of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) chapter 9.1 of title 10 (1984 Cum.Supp.). The petitioner, Wayne Barboza (Barboza), seeks to set aside a guilty plea entered on his behalf in early December 1979 to a one-count indictment that charged him with the commission of common-law rape. Barboza claims that his guilty plea, because of ineffective assistance of his counsel, was entered under duress and with a total lack on his part of any knowledge about his constitutional rights.

The rape indictment was returned in December 1978 by a Newport County grand jury. At that time Barboza was represented by John T. Sheehan, Jr., an attorney who had been practicing law in the Newport County area for 6 1/2 years. A not-guilty plea was entered on Barboza's behalf, and he was released on bail. The transcript of the hearing on the petition indicates that immediately after pleading not guilty to the charge contained in the indictment, Barboza conferred with his attorney for a period of fifteen or twenty minutes.

The next time Barboza met with his counsel was about a year later on Saturday, December 1, 1979, two days before he was scheduled to go on trial. At that time he was represented by Mr. Sheehan and Eugene F. Toro, at one time a member of the Department of the Public Defender and a practitioner with extensive experience in the criminal-law area.

Barboza told the trial justice that the first time he was aware of any thought of plea bargaining was when he conferred with his attorneys on the Saturday before the trial was to begin. Barboza then asked about the possibility of his obtaining a continuance so that he could seek other counsel. He was told that the trial justice would not grant a continuance because the case was scheduled for trial two days later, on Monday.

On Monday, December 3, 1979, the attorneys had a pretrial conference with the Superior Court justice who was to preside over the trial. After the conference they reported to Barboza that if he went to trial and was convicted, he would, in Barboza's words, "be facing twenty-five years," but "if I took a plea of nolo, I could get five." Barboza also said that he was insisting on the nolo plea because "I couldn't admit to my guilt."

The only other witness at the 1980 hearing on Barboza's petition who testified about what happened between the time of the return of the rape indictment and the day of trial was Attorney Sheehan, who corroborated the fact that there were two meetings between Barboza and his counsel prior to the day he was sentenced. The attorney also reported that Barboza was informed that if he went to trial, the maximum penalty could be life imprisonment but that the "best estimate" would be that the trial justice would impose a twenty-five-year sentence.

When the case was called ready for trial, Attorney Toro told the trial justice that Barboza "after careful consultation and reflection * * * would like to withdraw his previously entered plea of not guilty and request the court to accept a plea of nolo to the charge." The trial justice responded by saying that the court would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • 17 Octubre 1994
    ... ... In addition, the project is to be performed in compliance with OSHA Regulations 1 and local, state and national building codes. Although the contractor has control over the quality of all work ... ...
  • Reyes v. State
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 11 Julio 2016
    ...80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Bido v. State, 56 A.3d 104, 110 (R.I.2012) ; Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d 180, 182 (R.I.1987) ; Barboza v. State, 484 A.2d 881, 883–84 (R.I.1984). Under this framework, an applicant for postconviction relief first “must establish that counsel's performance was constit......
  • State v. Brennan
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1993
    ...test, and we have repeatedly patterned our evaluations of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims under its requirements. Barboza v. State, 484 A.2d 881 (R.I.1984). Under Strickland a complaining defendant must meet certain criteria to establish that counsel's assistance was ineffective. T......
  • Clark v. Ellerthorpe
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 30 Enero 1989
    ...v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), promulgated a two-prong test, adopted by this court in Barboza v. State, 484 A.2d 881 (R.I.1984), which requires a convicted defendant to prove that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance pre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT