Page v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2004-105-Appeal.,2004-105-Appeal. |
| Parties | William PAGE v. STATE of Rhode Island. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Marie T. Roebuck, Office of the Public Defender, for Plaintiff.
Virginia M. McGinn, Department of Attorney General, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and ROBINSON, JJ.
The applicant, William Page, having been previously convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, appeals to this Court from the Superior Court's denial of his application for postconviction relief. On appeal, Mr. Page contends that his application should have been granted based on what he contends was the ineffective assistance of both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel.1
For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment denying postconviction relief with respect to applicant's representation by trial counsel—both during the trial itself and at the sentencing proceeding.
In addition, we have addressed the issue of the effectiveness (vel non) of applicant's representation before this Court on his direct appeal. Having determined that that representation was deficient due to appellate counsel's failure to petition this Court for de novo review of Mr. Page's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, we have proceeded to conduct the statutorily authorized appellate review and have concluded that Mr. Page's sentence was appropriate.
The factual background of this case is described at length in two earlier decisions of this Court—viz., State v. Page, 709 A.2d 1042 (R.I.1998) and State v. Lambert, 705 A.2d 957 (R.I.1997). For the sake of brevity, we shall summarize in this opinion only the facts that are relevant to the issues implicated by this appeal.
On December 6, 1995, following a jury-waived trial, Mr. Page was convicted of first-degree murder and of having committed a crime of violence while armed with a firearm (a BB gun); both convictions related to the brutal killing of Sylvester Gardiner. Page, 709 A.2d at 1044. Mr. Gardiner was a homeless man who was savagely beaten to death with a blunt axe handle by Mr. Page and another young man, Michael Lambert,2 on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 1994. Id. at 1043.
On May 3, 1996, the trial justice sentenced Mr. Page to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; he also sentenced him to a concurrent ten-year sentence for having committed a crime of violence while armed with a firearm. In the course of imposing the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the trial justice stated that "without question, the brutal murder of Mr. Gardiner was the most atrocious, barbaric killing imaginable." The trial justice acknowledged that he had "looked in vain for some mitigating factor which might somehow deter him from sending Mr. Page to prison for the rest of his life." The trial justice added that "the only factor— if it is a factor at all—is Mr. Page's age."3
After focusing on Mr. Page's long history of violent and aggressive behavior, the trial justice addressed him as follows before pronouncing sentence:
Mr. Page appealed his conviction to this Court. His first contention on his direct appeal was that the incriminating statements that he made to the police after his arrest should have been suppressed4 because (according to Mr. Page): (1) those statements were obtained through police coercion; (2) he was incapacitated by drugs and alcohol and thus was incapable of voluntarily waiving his Miranda5 rights; and (3) he was wrongfully interrogated after he requested an attorney. Page, 709 A.2d at 1044. Mr. Page additionally contended on direct appeal that the ten-year concurrent sentence that he received (in addition to his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole) constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Page, 709 A.2d at 1046. His final contention was that he had not been afforded effective assistance by his trial counsel. Id. This Court addressed those of Mr. Page's arguments that were properly before it on direct appeal.6 The Court ultimately rejected the appeal, affirming Mr. Page's conviction. Id. at 1047.
Following this Court's affirmance of his conviction, Mr. Page, in reliance upon G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1, filed an application for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. (The record reveals that Mr. Page filed two applications, the first in 1998 and then an amended petition in 2002.) In his application, Mr. Page alleged ineffective assistance on the part of both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel.7 On April 15, 2003, a postconviction relief hearing was held before the same justice of the Superior Court as had conducted Mr. Page's 1995 murder trial.
At the postconviction relief hearing, Mr. Page argued that his representation by his trial counsel constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Mr. Page's trial counsel was the sole witness at the postconviction relief hearing. Trial counsel testified that he had initially considered employing an insanity or diminished capacity defense. Counsel explained, however, that he decided against employing either defense in view of the fact that he was expressly told by the psychiatrist who had evaluated Mr. Page and with whom trial counsel had consulted that Mr. Page was "one of the most dangerous individuals whom the psychiatrist had ever met." Counsel testified that, in view of that assessment, he did not present the testimony of any psychiatrist or psychologist at trial because he believed that such testimony "could not help his client."
Trial counsel testified that he also investigated the potential defense of intoxication by speaking directly to Mr. Page regarding his use of drugs and alcohol at the time of the murder. Mr. Page informed counsel that on the day of the murder he had smoked a "blunt" (which we understand to be a reference to marijuana) and that, on the day of his arrest, he had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol. Trial counsel testified that he conducted research into and made himself aware of the case law concerning the relationship between intoxication and culpability for first-degree murder. It is a fair inference from the record that trial counsel concluded, based on his conversations with Mr. Page and his research, that further attempts to use intoxication as a defense would not be a successful strategy. Counsel further testified that he did use the evidence of intoxication as one of the grounds for his motion to suppress the incriminating statements that Mr. Page had made after his arrest. He added that the trial justice denied that motion.8
Trial counsel further testified that he had attempted to reach a plea bargain with the Attorney General's Office in view of (1) the trial justice's ruling as to the admissibility of Mr. Page's incriminating statements; (2) the likely admissibility of certain gruesome photographs of Mr. Gardiner's brutally beaten body;9 and (3) the fact that Mr. Page's fingerprints were present on one of the murder weapons. He added that his attempt to reach a plea agreement was unsuccessful.
It was further trial counsel's testimony that, when he realized that his plea bargaining attempt had not been successful, it was his belief that, in view of that adverse development and in view of the above-referenced formidable evidence of guilt, the best strategy would be to focus on sentencing. He testified that, at that point in time, he advised Mr. Page of his view that the most advisable course of action would be to proceed with a jury-waived trial on the basis of stipulated facts.10 Trial counsel testified at the postconviction relief hearing that, "given the heinous nature of the photographs and the act," he felt that it was unlikely that Mr. Page would have had the benefit of a truly "fair and impartial jury."
According to trial counsel's own testimony, it was his hope that, if defendant opted for a nonjury trial and stipulated to the evidence submitted by the prosecution,11 the trial justice would manifest some degree of leniency towards him at sentencing. Counsel's hope was premised on the fact that, by opting for a nonjury trial with stipulated evidence, Mr. Page would thereby spare the victim's family the travail of having to endure the highly upsetting evidence about the murder that would surely take place in a drawn-out and explicit manner during a jury trial or during a bench trial with no stipulation as to the facts.12
After considering trial counsel's testimony at the postconviction relief hearing, the hearing justice rejected Mr. Page's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial itself. He found that, once his attempt to persuade the trial justice to suppress his client's confession proved unsuccessful, trial counsel had faced overwhelming physical evidence and had been left with no realistic trial strategy. He was further satisfied that trial counsel had conducted a reasonable investigation into the possible defenses of diminished capacity and insanity; he noted that, after consulting with a psychiatrist and considering the psychiatrist's assessment, trial counsel had decided against employing either defense. The hearing justice was also satisfied with respect to trial counsel's investigation and decision-making relative to possibly raising a defense based on intoxication.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charette v. State
...to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the alleged instance or instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Page v. State, 995 A.2d 934, 942 (R.I. 2010); Hazard v. State, 968 A.2d 886, 891-92 (R.I. 2009); Bleau v. State, 968 A.2d 276, 278 (R.I.2009); Brown v. State, 964 A.2d 516, ......
-
In re Williams
...was suffered from his claim of counsel's failure to investigate and present these witnesses. 720 A.2d at 553 ; see also Page v. State, 995 A.2d 934, 947–48 (R.I.2010) (rejecting argument that counsel was ineffective at sentencing hearing, and finding that defendant failed to point to any si......
-
Whitaker v. State
...so serious as to amount to a deprivation of the applicant's right to a fair trial." Barros , 180 A.3d at 829 (quoting Page v. State , 995 A.2d 934, 943 (R.I. 2010) ). In other words, the applicant must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional error......
-
State v. Pineda
...constitutional rights have been infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications * * *.’ ” Page v. State, 995 A.2d 934, 942 (R.I.2010) (quoting Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001) (applying de novo review to an appeal of a denial of an applicatio......
-
Adolescent brain science after Graham v. Florida.
...No. A-9228, 2008 WL 2152028 (Alaska Ct. App. May 21, 2008). See Maroney, supra note 7, at 127 nn.154 & 156. (41) Cf. Page v. State, 995 A.2d 934, 951-53 (R.I. 2010) (Flaherty, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing, with reference to brain science, that an eighteen-year......