Simpson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-267-C.A.,99-267-C.A. |
| Citation | 769 A.2d 1257 |
| Parties | Elton SIMPSON v. STATE of Rhode Island. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present WEISBERGER, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
James Moretti, Cranston, for plaintiff.
Annie Goldberg, Jane M. McSoley, Providence, John E. Sullivan, III, Aaron L. Weisman, Providence, for defendant.
Elton Simpson (Simpson) appeals from the Superior Court's denial of his application for postconviction relief filed pursuant to G.L. 1956 chapter 9.1 of title 10. He had been convicted of first-degree sexual assault, burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, and breaking and entering. In his appeal, Simpson alleges that he was denied his federal Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at his Superior Court jury trial as the result of a per se conflict of interest that existed between two assistant public defenders, one of whom had succeeded the other in representing him. For the reasons we hereinafter set out, we affirm the denial of his application for postconviction relief.
During the early morning hours of July 30, 1988, Simpson raped Jane Doe (Doe)1 at knife-point in her bed after breaking into her apartment. After fleeing, Simpson then surreptitiously entered the apartment of Mary Roe (Roe)2 and held a knife to her throat. He subsequently was arrested, indicted for both incidents and arraigned on one count of first-degree sexual assault, two counts of burglary, and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon.3
At a Superior Court bail hearing on December 1, 1988, Simpson was represented by Richard Brousseau (Brousseau), an assistant public defender in the office of the Public Defender. Despite Brousseau's admonishments, Simpson insisted upon testifying at his bail hearing, and in the course thereof provided incriminating testimony, including that he was "not sure" whether the allegations made against him were true.4 Thereafter, Simpson wrote to Richard M. Casparian (Casparian), who was then the state's Public Defender, expressing his disenchantment with Brousseau and asking to be assigned a new assistant public defender. After the bail hearing, Brousseau withdrew as Simpson's attorney. Dale Anderson (Anderson), another assistant public defender, was assigned to represent Simpson at his trial.
At his Superior Court jury trial, Simpson once again insisted upon testifying. This time, he was able to testify with much greater recollection and detail than at his bail hearing in denying the criminal allegations leveled against him. On cross-examination, however, the prosecutor confronted Simpson with portions of his earlier bail hearing testimony to effectively impeach Simpson's testimonial credibility.
On April 5, 1990, a superior court trial jury, after deliberating over a two-day period, returned guilty verdicts on each charge. On June 26, 1990, sentences totaling fifty years were imposed on Simpson, twenty-five years of which were to be served and the remaining twenty-five years were suspended. Anderson, because of criticism leveled against him by Simpson after the jury returned its verdicts, then withdrew as Simpson's attorney, and Mary June Ciresi (Ciresi), an experienced attorney in private practice, was appointed to represent Simpson in his appeal. In his appeal, Simpson challenged only his conviction on the burglary count, contending that the trial justice erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge. We denied his appeal and affirmed his conviction on June 23, 1992. State v. Simpson, 611 A.2d 1390, 1394 (R.I.1992).
In 1994, Ciresi withdrew from the case. Five private defense attorneys thereafter were appointed in succession to represent Simpson in his postconviction proceedings, all of whom declined or withdrew from that representation. James T. McCormick, a private defense counsel, was the last to be appointed to represent Simpson in his postconviction proceeding.5 Simpson's Superior Court application for postconviction relief pursuant to § 10-9.1-1 was filed on July 30, 1997.6 In his application, Simpson contended that his federal Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel had been violated. He argued that a per se "conflict of interest" existed between Brousseau and Anderson, constituting a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to have effective assistance of counsel, and that because of that conflict, his public defender attorneys performed deficiently, before and at his trial.7 Integral to both assertions was Simpson's contention that Brousseau had called him to testify at the bail hearing against his express wishes, and in spite of the "fact" that he had informed Brousseau that he had taken prescription medication for a back-related injury, which purportedly affected his ability to testify. Simpson contended that Anderson, who replaced Brousseau as his counsel, then should have attempted to have his bail hearing testimony excluded, but that he neglected to do so. Simpson never elaborated on how he expected that to be done. Simpson's postconviction application alleged in part only that Anderson had failed to take action with regard to the bail hearing testimony because "he and Mr. Brousseau worked together" as colleagues at the public defender's office and therefore Anderson "did not want to get involved."
At the postconviction hearings, the main evidence of the alleged per se "conflict of interest" and the later ineffective jury trial performance by his trial counsel, came from the testimony of Simpson.8 Simpson testified at the postconviction hearings that he had informed Brousseau on numerous occasions that he was on prescription medication for a back problem and that this medication caused him to feel lightheaded on the day of the bail hearing.
Simpson also insisted that he had informed Brousseau, before the bail hearing, that he wished to testify only about the charges by Doe, the rape victim, and would not testify if both Doe and Roe, the second victim, testified at the bail hearing.9 Simpson apparently had wanted the charges related to the two victims severed and wanted to have two separate bail hearings for each charge. After both Doe and Roe did in fact testify against him at the bail hearing, Simpson then alleges that he informed Brousseau during a bail hearing noon recess period that he no longer wished to testify because he would have to "incriminate" himself to "a certain extent against Mary Roe in order to protect myself against Jane Doe." At this point, Simpson then alleges that Brousseau insisted that he testify. Simpson also testified that he had informed Brousseau during this noon recess period that he did not want to testify at the bail hearing "because [he] wasn't feeling well." Simpson then alleges that he informed Brousseau that he was no longer happy with Brousseau's representation and that he wished Brousseau to remove himself from the case. According to Simpson, this angered Brousseau, and Simpson was then "under the impression when he [Brousseau] got upstairs he was going to ask the judge to appoint someone else to the case." When the hearing resumed, however, Simpson claims that Brousseau "all of a sudden" called him to testify.
Simpson also testified that he wrote to Casparian, the state Public Defender, asking for the assignment of new counsel because "there was a total breakdown in lawyer-client relationship" and "[t]here was no way I was going to talk to Mr. Brousseau again, and could he please appoint another lawyer."10
After Anderson was assigned to take over Simpson's case, Simpson says he told Anderson that he wanted his bail hearing testimony suppressed before his trial began because he had testified while "under duress and under medications at the time." He also alleges he told Anderson that he wanted the charges related to Doe and Roe to be severed and tried separately. According to Simpson, Anderson rejected these requests because Brousseau and he "worked together" and Anderson was "more concerned with protecting Mr. Brousseau and his office than he was in protecting me." Simpson testified that he did not pursue these requests further and retained Anderson as his counsel only because of circumstances that arose following his arrest on another and new sexual assault charge shortly before trial:
Simpson's uncorroborated account of his interactions with both Brousseau and Anderson is flatly contradicted by other evidence that we discern in the record. The record demonstrates unequivocally that on multiple occasions Brousseau advised Simpson that he should not testify at the bail hearing. In addition, Simpson himself acknowledged under oath that Brousseau had advised him not to testify on the day before the bail hearing and, as well, on the morning of the bail hearing. The following colloquy took place during direct examination of Simpson at the postconviction hearing:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thornton
...this Court reviews such a determination de novo, giving deference to the lower court's findings of historical fact. Simpson v. State, 769 A.2d 1257, 1265-66 (R.I.2001). Thornton specifically asserts here that his waiver must be deemed to have been invalid because the trial justice failed to......
-
State v. Verrecchia
...of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts * * *." See Simpson v. State, 769 A.2d 1257, 1265-66 (R.I.2001) (explaining the relationship between our de novo review of the ultimate issue of the infringement of constitutional rights and ......
-
Charette v. State
...the conviction or . . . sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable." Simpson v. State, 769 A.2d 1257, 1266 (R.I.2001) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). In assessing the first part of the Strickland test, the performance of counsel is ......
-
State v. Verrecchia, No. 2001-554-C.A (RI 8/26/2005)
...of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts * * *." See Simpson v. State, 769 A.2d 1257, 1265-66 (R.I. 2001) (explaining the relationship between our de novo review of the ultimate issue of the infringement of constitutional rights and......