Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-558-C.A.,2003-558-C.A. |
| Citation | 878 A.2d 1049 |
| Parties | Randy ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
James T. McCormick, Providence, for plaintiff.
Virginia M. McGinn, Providence, for defendant.
This case came before the Supreme Court on May 10, 2005, 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 arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown. Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal at this time. We affirm the judgment.
The petitioner, Randy Anderson (Anderson or petitioner), was convicted of one count of a two-count indictment charging him with first-degree child molestation. His appeal from that conviction was denied in State v. Anderson, 752 A.2d 946 (R.I.2000). Subsequently, he petitioned the Superior Court for postconviction relief arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Before the Superior Court, petitioner was provided with a court-appointed attorney, who submitted a memorandum of law concluding that petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit and requesting that the court discharge him from representing petitioner in that proceeding in order to avoid violating Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition for postconviction relief was denied without a hearing. This Court remanded the case for a hearing in accordance with Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130 (R.I.2000). The petitioner was provided new counsel and proceeded to a hearing on remand.
The petitioner contended that his trial attorney failed to fully exploit the complainant's prior inconsistent statements and her admissions in order to impeach her credibility. Also, petitioner contends his trial counsel failed to object, on hearsay grounds, to the testimony of another witness, Lindsay Wallace. He contended that defense counsel should have moved to admit, as a full exhibit, a page of the complainant's police statement, which had been edited by a police officer. However, Anderson acknowledged that his counsel had raised this issue at trial and that the police statement "was probably not admissible substantively." Also, petitioner contended that his lawyer failed to request records from the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and to locate the complainant's medical records, which he claimed would show no evidence of any physical injury to the complainant.
The hearing justice, who also was the trial justice, denied the petition on the ground that Anderson had failed to satisfy the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).1 He concluded that petitioner was effectively represented at trial. The trial justice held that petitioner failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his attorney's performance. He noted that the victim was "severely cross-examined" and "challenged on the stand" by defense counsel and that the admission of Lindsay Wallace's hearsay evidence was not prejudicial because it was replicated by the testimony of another witness. Further, petitioner admitted that DCYF's policy called for the destruction of relevant records before defense counsel had even been appointed in this case. Finally, the hearing justice found that the probative value of medical records prepared a month after the incident, offered to prove that no molestation had occurred, was "highly speculative." The hearing justice pointed to the acquittal on one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State
...failed to satisfy the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).” 7Anderson v. State, 878 A.2d 1049, 1049 (R.I.2005) (mem.). In regard to the medical records, the hearing justice found that the probative value of such records “prepared a m......
-
Jimenez v. State
... ... not), the result would have been different. Evans v ... Wall , 910 A.2d 801, 804 (R.I. 2006). A review of the ... record in this case leads this Court unreservedly to the same ... conclusion which the Supreme Court reached in Anderson v ... State , 878 A.2d 1049, 1050 (R.I. 2005): "The ... conviction in this case was not a result of petitioner's ... attorney but, rather, the weight of the credible evidence ... against [him]." ... The ... within application for postconviction relief ... ...
-
Carpio v. State
...defense. A review of the record in this case leads this Court to the same conclusion which the Supreme Court reached in Anderson v. State, 878 A.2d 1049, 1050 (R.I. 2005): "The conviction in this case was not a result petitioner's attorney but, rather, the weight of the credible evidence ag......
-
Jesus Fuentes v. State
... ... Withal, ... Fuentes has failed to present any evidence which passes ... either of Strickland's sentries with respect to ... any claim he has raised in his petition.[5] This Court ... concludes, as did the Supreme Court in Anderson v ... State, 878 A.2d 1049, 1050 (R.I. 2005), that "[t]he ... conviction in this case was not a result of petitioner's ... attorney but, rather, the weight of the credible evidence ... against [him]." ... Fuentes' ... application for postconviction ... ...