Burke v. State
Decision Date | 14 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 2006-124-A.,2006-124-A. |
Parties | William BURKE v. STATE of Rhode Island. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Marie T. Roebuck, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.
Aaron L. Weisman, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., and GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.
The applicant, William Burke (Burke or applicant), appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on May 14, 2007, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the record and memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal may be decided at this time without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the ruling of the Superior Court.
In 1985, Burke was convicted of seven counts of robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob, and one count of carrying an unlicensed pistol for a heist he perpetrated at Foley's Lounge in Cumberland. He was sentenced to serve sixty years for these crimes.1 His conviction was affirmed by this Court in State v. Burke, 529 A.2d 621 (R.I.1987). We subsequently affirmed the denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in State v. Burke, 559 A.2d 1062 (R.I.1989).
Almost twenty years after his conviction, Burke filed an application for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1, alleging a denial of an opportunity to be heard on a motion to reduce his sentence under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.2 The basis for his application was ineffective assistance of counsel—specifically, his attorney's failure both to advise him of and file a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence within the allotted 120-day period. After hearing applicant's and his attorney's testimony, a hearing justice denied the application. The applicant timely appealed.
When reviewing a ruling on an application for postconviction relief, we "afford great deference to findings of historical fact by the hearing justice[.]" Ferrell v. Wall, 889 A.2d 177, 183-84 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Hampton v. State, 786 A.2d 375, 379 (R.I.2001)). However, this Court reviews "de novo any postconviction relief decision involving questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an alleged violation of an applicant's constitutional rights." Id. at 184 (quoting Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I. 2005)). Moreover, an applicant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to postconviction relief. Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I.2007).
In Rhode Island, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to the two-part test announced in the United States Supreme Court's seminal decision, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Kholi v. Wall, 911 A.2d 262, 264 (R.I.2006).
Kholi, 911 A.2d at 264 (quoting Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d 180, 182 (R.I.1987)).
In an ineffective assistance inquiry, "the benchmark issue is 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.'" Ferrell, 889 A.2d at 191 (quoting Young, 877 A.2d at 629). This Court will not disturb a hearing justice's ruling unless an applicant can adequately show "`that the findings of the hearing justice were clearly wrong or that [he or] she overlooked or misconceived material evidence.'" Kholi, 911 A.2d at 264. A claim of ineffective assistance against privately retained counsel likely will fail "`unless the attorney's representation [was] so lacking that the trial had become a farce and a mockery of justice * * *.'" Vorgvongsa v. State, 785 A.2d 542, 548 (R.I.2001); see also Larngar, 918 A.2d at 856.
The applicant in this case has failed to satisfy even the first Strickland prong. We are aware of—and the applicant points us to—no authority for the proposition that failure to file a timely Rule 35 motion per se amounts to constitutionally deficient representation. See Silano v. United States, 621 F.Supp. 1103, 1105 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (mem.) (analogizing a Rule 35 "plea for leniency" to a discretionary review, and holding that "failure of counsel to file timely a Rule 35(b) motion is not in itself ineffective assistance of counsel"). Furthermore, even if we were to accept as true the applicant's allegation that his attorney never discussed filing a Rule 35 motion with him, there was an obvious tactical reason for such an omission. "[T]actical decisions * * * do not by themselves constitute ineffective assistance of counsel." Lyons v. State, 909 A.2d 490, 493 (R.I.2006) (quoting Toole v. State, 748 A.2d 806, 809 (R.I.2000)). On January 14, 1986, while his appeal was pending before this Court, the applicant was arrested and charged with several offenses in connection with a robbery he allegedly perpetrated at Chick's Spa in Manville twelve days before he was sentenced in the instant case. The applicant's attorney testified at the postconviction-relief hearing that this subsequent criminal activity, coupled with the rumored reputation for harshness of the sentencing judge, would have impacted his decision whether to file a Rule 35 motion because of the risk of exposing his client to an increased sentence. See Rule 35(b). In light of these circumstances, we are satisfied that the attorney's decision not to pursue a sentence reduction was "the result of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Because the applicant has failed to satisfy the first Strickland prong, we do not reach the second.3
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. The record shall be remanded to the Superior Court.
1. The applicant was sentenced as follows: On count 1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tempest v. State
... ... writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy[.]" Sec ... 10-9.1-1(a) ... In ... pursuing such claims, a petitioner "bears the burden of ... proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is ... entitled to postconviction relief." Burke v ... State , 925 A.2d 890, 893 (R.I. 2007) (citing Larngar ... v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I. 2007)). The proceedings ... for such relief are "civil in nature." Ouimette ... v. Moran , 541 A.2d 855, 856 (R.I. 1988) (citing ... State v. Tassone, 417 A.2d 323 ... ...
-
Reyes v. State
...See, e.g., Brown v. State, 964 A.2d 516, 527 n. 15 (R.I.2009) ; Chalk v. State, 949 A.2d 395, 398 (R.I.2008) ; Burke v. State, 925 A.2d 890, 893 (R.I.2007) ; Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 856 & n. 6, 858 (R.I.2007) ; Hampton v. State, 786 A.2d 375, 381 (R.I.2001) ; Vorgvongsa v. State, 785......
-
Tempest v. State
..."bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to postconviction relief." Burke v. State, 925 A.2d 890, 893 (R.I. 2007) (citing Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I. 2007)). The proceedings for such relief are "civil in nature." Ouimette v. Moran, 5......
-
Brown v. State
...bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he [or she] is entitled to post-conviction relief." Burke v. State, 925 A.2d 890, 893 (R.I. 2007) (citing Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I. 2007)). Thus, the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance......