Brown v. Moran
Citation | 534 A.2d 180 |
Decision Date | 09 December 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-386-C,86-386-C |
Parties | George S. BROWN v. John J. MORAN. A. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
This is an appeal from the denial of an application for postconviction relief filed pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment) chapter 9.1 of title 10. The petitioner, George S. Brown, was convicted of first-degree murder on June 28, 1982 and is presently serving a life sentence at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). He alleges that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of his petition for postconviction relief.
On the afternoon of April 10, 1977, Donna M. Brown, petitioner's wife, was stabbed to death in her apartment in Providence, Rhode Island. Approximately one hour later petitioner was arrested at a friend's house in Cranston, Rhode Island. He was then transported to the Cranston police station where he waived his constitutional rights and gave a statement to the Providence police in which he confessed to the murder.
In May of 1977 petitioner was indicted for the murder of his wife. He pleaded not guilty and was held without bail at the ACI. In October of 1977 he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of second-degree murder and received a sentence of fifty years in prison.
In July of 1980 petitioner applied for postconviction relief pursuant to chapter 9.1 of title 10. He withdrew his plea of nolo contendere, and his sentence was vacated. In January of 1981 the original indictment was dismissed, and he was re-indicted for the murder of his wife. He then entered a plea of not guilty and moved to suppress his confession. A hearing was held on June 16, 1982, and the motion to suppress was denied. He was subsequently convicted after trial of first-degree murder and received a life sentence. He appealed to this court on the ground that the trial judge was in error in denying his motion to suppress. We remanded the case for a further evidentiary hearing. State v. Brown, 468 A.2d 914 (R.I. 1983). Following remand, this court affirmed petitioner's conviction. State v. Brown, 488 A.2d 1217 (R.I. 1985).
The petitioner then sought postconviction relief, based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the suppression hearing. The suppression hearing focused upon the inculpatory statement he gave to the police following his arrest. He claims he was convicted of first-degree murder solely on the basis of that statement.
The petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to introduce available evidence of petitioner's intoxication prior to his arrest. 1 He argues that this evidence would have established that his statement was involuntarily given. It therefore would have been excluded from trial.
The available evidence of petitioner's intoxication consisted of affidavits from three witnesses who claimed that petitioner appeared intoxicated just prior to his arrest and an affidavit from the clinical director of the Institute of Mental Health stating that petitioner had a long-standing alcohol problem and suffered serious emotional disturbances.
At the suppression hearing, trial counsel did not present any evidence of petitioner's alleged intoxication. None of the witnesses or the clinical director was called to testify. In addition, an evaluation of petitioner performed by an alcohol-abuse counselor just prior to the hearing was not offered. The only testimony of intoxication presented during the suppression hearing came from three state witnesses who testified that petitioner did not seem intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
Trial counsel chose not to argue that petitioner's statement was involuntarily given. Rather, he contended that since the police had no probable cause to arrest him on the afternoon of the murder, his confession was illegally obtained. If that argument had been successful, the statement would have been suppressed and excluded from trial.
The appropriate standard for reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). In Strickland the Court stated, "[t]he benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Id. at 686, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 692-93.
Strickland sets forth a two-part test to determine whether counsel's assistance is ineffective.
Id. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693.
In discussing the first component of the test, the Court stated that counsel's representation is deficient if it falls below "an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. "In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances." Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2065, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 694. As far as the second component is concerned, the Court explained, to prove prejudice, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698.
The Court cautioned against subjecting counsel's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reyes v. State
...v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 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 “mus......
-
Barros v. State
... ... Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which ... has been adopted by our Supreme Court. Brown v ... Moran , 534 A.2d 180, 182 (R.I. 1987); LaChappelle v ... State , 686 A.2d 924, 926 (R.I. 1996). Whether an ... attorney ... ...
-
Barros v. State
...assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which has been adopted by our Supreme Court. Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d 180, 182 (R.I. 1987); LaChappelle v. State, 686 A.2d 924, 926 (R.I. 1996). Whether an attorney has failed to provide effective assistance is a factua......
-
State v. Brennan
...it is clear that material evidence has been overlooked or misconceived. Fontaine v. State, 602 A.2d 521, 526 (R.I.1992); Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d 180, 183 (R.I.1987). We find neither of these situations in this The first part of the Strickland test can be met only if a party shows "that cou......