Jacques v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-703-A,94-703-A |
| Citation | 669 A.2d 1124 |
| Parties | Norman J. JACQUES v. STATE of Rhode Island. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This matter came before the Supreme Court on November 8, 1995, pursuant to an order directing the applicant, Norman J. Jacques, to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The applicant appeals, pro se, from an order of the Superior Court denying his application for postconviction relief.
After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing the applicant and the attorney for the state in oral argument, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues raised by this appeal will be decided at this time.
The applicant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in 1986. That conviction was affirmed in 1988 following his direct appeal to this court. State v. Jacques, 536 A.2d 535 (R.I.1988). Presently applicant seeks collateral relief from the denial of his second amended petition for postconviction relief.
The applicant's prebriefing statement sets forth numerous issues. After a six-day evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial justice issued a detailed decision addressing each issue raised. He concluded that none of the issues entitled applicant to relief. Upon careful examination of the record and the decision of the trial justice, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct and that his decision accurately states the law and controlling authority. If we were to issue our own full opinion in this case, we would add nothing to the analysis and conclusions of the trial justice. Therefore, we adopt the decision in its entirety and incorporate it herein as part of our opinion in the case. 1
At the close of his argument applicant requested the recusal of three justices then sitting, the Chief Justice and Justices Murray and Lederberg. When we reminded applicant that without these justices there would be no quorum to hear his appeal, he withdrew his request for the Chief Justice's recusal.
Justices Murray and Lederberg have considered this request and are of the opinion that there is no valid reason for their recusal. They have deliberated on this case and join in the opinion of the court.
Therefore, the applicant's appeal is denied and dismissed. The order appealed from is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.
The above entitled case has been decided by a per curiam opinion entered on this date. This opinion was delayed for thirty days awaiting a memorandum by Norman J. Jacques in support of his request for recusal of two justices of this court. Because no such memorandum was filed, the opinion was issued with the participation of all justices who heard the oral argument.
APPENDIX
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND
PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE, SC.
PM/88-1347
Filed April 13, 1994
NORMAN J. JACQUES Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Defendant.
DECISION
This matter is before the Court on Norman Jacques' application for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to R.I.G.L. § 10-9.1-1 (1985).
The initial petition was filed on March 21, 1988 after an appeal of his conviction was denied by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in State v. Jacques, 536 A.2d 535 (1988). An amended petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed by State appointed counsel for Jacques on May 31, 1988.
The grounds upon which this application is filed are as follows:
1. That the Statutory Scheme under which he received the indictment R.I.G.L. § 11-37-1 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, that trial justice incorrectly instructed the jury regarding the elements necessary to convict him of the crime of sexual assault.
2. Prosecutorial abuse in that it is alleged that the prosecutor knowingly withheld evidence favorable to the defense during both the Grand Jury and Petit Jury proceeding.
3. That the petitioner did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial.
4. That since the Petit Jury trial, which resulted in the Petitioner being convicted of first degree sexual assault, the Petitioner has acquired newly discovered evidence which the Petitioner believes could result in a favorable verdict if a new trial was granted.
5. That the sentence the Petitioner received violates both the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions.
Wherefore the Petitioner requests that the Court:
1. Conduct a full evidentiary hearing with respect to the allegations of the said petition.
2. Grant Petitioner's request for Post-Conviction Relief.
3. Reduce the sentence imposed by the Trial Judge.
State v. Jacques, 536 A.2d 535 (R.I.1988), contains the substantive facts of the case. Jacques was originally indicted for violating R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 11-37-2 and 11-37-3 (1985). On March 20, 1986, Jacques was convicted for violating § 11-37-2 for engaging in sexual penetration of a female through the use of force or coercion. Jacques filed a motion for a new trial on April 18, 1986, which was denied. On June 20, 1986, Jacques received a prison sentence of twelve years: four years were to serve and eight years were suspended. Jacques served a total of 18 months in prison. Jacques' appeal was denied and his conviction was affirmed in State v. Jacques.
This petition for Post-Conviction Relief was commenced in March of 1988 by Jacques and shortly thereafter he was found to be indigent which resulted in the appointment of a State attorney by the Court.
On May 18, 1988 Attorney Susan Iannitelli was appointed by the court and filed an amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. During this period of time Associate Justice Francis Kiely, who presided over the petit jury trial which resulted in the conviction of Jacques, retired from the Superior Court and the pending Petition was assigned to Justice Grande. While this case was before Judge Grande, the designated State's attorney, Susan Iannitelli, moved to withdraw her appearance for the reason that Jacques had requested her to do so. On August 18, 1988 Judge Grande granted her request to withdraw.
On August 17, 1988, Judge Grande ordered the sealing of a certain envelope containing papers and other materials and that it be placed in the fifth floor vault, the Court's Registry Department. A motion filed by Jacques' attorney to inspect the contents of this envelope was denied by this Court with the suggestion that counsel appeal to the Supreme Court for the purpose of gaining access to the contents of this envelope. No further action was ever taken by Petitioner's counsel to acquire this information. Judge Grande recused herself from hearing the petition and this resulted in this case being assigned to Justice Thomas J. Caldarone, Jr.
Several months passed before the question for a newly appointed State Counsel was addressed. On March 3, 1989 Attorney William Filippo was appointed by the Court and this appointment was refused. On March 23 1989, Attorney Robert D. Watt was appointed and his motion to withdraw was filed on June 19, 1989 and granted. Finally, on November 20, 1989 Attorney Martin Malinou was appointed and remained as counsel until the matter was called for an evidentiary hearing in December 1993. During the period that ensued between March, 1989 and December, 1993 numerous appearances were made by counsel before the Court accompanied with the submission of numerous written memoranda in support and denial of the State's Motion for Summary Judgment.
This Court assigned the evidentiary hearing of the case for the first week of December, 1993. A ten day notice was given to both Petitioner's counsel and to the State. On the day the hearing was to commence, Jacques requested an indefinite continuance for the purpose of acquiring new counsel. Jacques indicated that he had spoken to a well-known constitutional lawyer and wanted him to represent him at the hearing. The Court continued the hearing one week in order to accommodate Jacques. On the next assigned date, Jacques informed the Court that his chosen attorney was not available on this newly assigned date and requested another continuance. The Court informed Jacques that the Court had set aside the necessary time to engage in the hearing and refused Jacques' request. Jacques was informed by the Court that he could proceed with his present counsel, Martin Malinou, or select to represent himself pro se. Jacques objected to the court's ruling and informed the Court that he would proceed pro se. The Court then informed Jacques that because of the extensive and apparent effective assistance provided by Attorney Malinou up to that point in the proceedings, it would serve the interest of all parties, including the Court, that Attorney Malinou be appointed stand-by counsel, but the Court made it very clear to Jacques that Jacques did not have to utilize him consistent with his constitutional right not to do so. Jacques was informed that Attorney Malinou would be available and would be able to accompany Jacques in the courtroom in any way Jacques would decide. Again, Jacques expressed his objection to the Court's ruling that his request for continuance was denied. The hearing commenced, and during the hearing, Attorney Malinou was utilized at Jacques' counsel table, and at the request of Jacques, Malinou engaged in some of the direct and cross-examination of witnesses. He also assisted Jacques with the preparation of written memorandum. Jacques principally did conduct the presentation of the evidence in support of the allegations contained in the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.
R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 10-9.1-1 to 10-9.1-9 (1985) governs the statutory remedy of Post-Conviction Relief. The remedy is available to persons convicted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mattatall v. State
...(R.I.2007); Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I.2007); see also Estrada v. Walker, 743 A.2d 1026, 1029 (R.I. 1999); Jacques v. State, 669 A.2d 1124, 1129 (R.I.1995). 8. The applicant also failed to provide this Court with the transcript of the sentencing hearing during which the trial j......
-
Brown v. State
...7 (R.I.2008); see also Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850, 855 (R.I.2007); Estrada v. Walker, 743 A.2d 1026, 1029 (R.I.1999); Jacques v. State, 669 A.2d 1124, 1129 (R.I.1995). In our opinion, Brown failed to present sufficient evidence to support the hearing justice's finding that John Brown was......
-
Larngar v. Wall
...that postconviction relief is warranted in his or her case. See Estrada v. Walker, 743 A.2d 1026, 1029 (R.I.1999); Jacques v. State, 669 A.2d 1124, 1129 (R.I.1995); Palmigiano v. Mullen, 119 R.I. 363, 374, 377 A.2d 242, 248 In State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2002), we summarized as foll......
-
Mastracchio v. Moran
...lessons, the jury's findings or Gilbert's credibility would have in any appreciable way been altered. See, e.g., Jacques v. State, 669 A.2d 1124, 1144 (R.I.1995). In light of defense counsel's thorough exploitation of Gilbert's sordid past, none of the so-called newly discovered impeaching ......