Toole v. State, 97-378-A
| Decision Date | 16 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-378-A,97-378-A |
| Citation | 713 A.2d 1264 |
| Parties | James TOOLE v. STATE of Rhode Island. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Richard K. Corley, Providence, for Plaintiff.
Aaron L. Weisman, Providence, for Defendant.
Before WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS and GOLDBERG, JJ.
This case came before this Court on May 11, 1998, pursuant to an order entered according to Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. James Toole (Toole) appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief. We conclude that a remand is proper.
Toole was indicted on several counts of child molestation on April 14, 1992. A public defender was assigned to defend Toole against the state's allegations of child molestation. In addition to being a defendant in the state's case against him, Toole was also scheduled to be a state witness against Michael Richardson (Richardson) in an unrelated case. Richardson, like Toole, was also represented by the Public Defender's office. The then-Public Defender, Richard Casparian (Casparian), informed the Superior Court that a conflict of interest existed as a result of his office's representation of both Toole and Richardson. Casparian suggested to the court that it appoint court-appointed counsel for Toole. The conflict issue was never pursued further, however, and Richardson's case was eventually disposed of by plea agreement on November 30, 1992.
Toole was convicted of five counts of child molestation on February 5, 1993. He was sentenced to five concurrent life sentences. A premature pro se application for postconviction relief and an application to appoint counsel were filed by Toole on May 28, 1993. On September 21, 1993, attorney Richard Corley (Corley) entered his appearance on behalf of Toole. His conviction was affirmed by this Court in April, 1994. State v. Toole, 640 A.2d 965 (R.I.1994). On March 22, 1995, Corley filed a new application for postconviction relief. That application alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the conflict of interest that had earlier concerned Casparian as well as on the failure of trial counsel to preserve objections for appeal. The state filed an answer to that application and asserted therein the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Toole's second application for postconviction relief was heard by the same Superior Court trial justice who had presided at Toole's child-molestation trial. Pretrial discovery was conducted, and on October 1, 1996, Toole filed a pretrial memorandum in support of his application. The court ordered the state to file a written response, which was filed on November 27, 1996. No evidentiary hearing was conducted on Toole's application for postconviction relief.
On December 5, 1996, the Superior Court trial justice entered a memorandum and order denying postconviction relief. The trial justice concluded that the record did not support Toole's conflict of interest theory because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...can proceed to rule on the application without a hearing.” O'Neil v. State, 814 A.2d 366, 367 (R.I.2002) (mem.) (citing Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264, 1266 (R.I.1998)). Here, despite Brown's contention that he was prohibited from subpoenaing witnesses or submitting documentary evidence, the......
-
Menard v. R.I. Department of Corrections
... ... Additional factual background of the robbery conviction may ... be found in State v. Menard , 669 A.2d 536 (R.I ... 1996) ( Menard I ), in which the Rhode Island Supreme ... State , ... 57 A.3d 677, 681 (R.I. 2013) (citing Toole v. State , ... 713 A.2d 1264 (R.I. 1998)). The opportunity to respond to a ... trial ... ...
-
Menard v. R.I. Dep't of Corr.
...reply to the hearing justice's proposed dismissal of the application." Perez v. State, 57 A.3d 677, 681 (R.I. 2013) (citing Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264 (R.I. 1998)). The opportunity to respond to a trial court's proposed dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief must be "mean......
-
Tassone v. State
...that it lacks merit.” Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130, 133 (R.I.2000) (emphasis added); see§ 10–9.1–6(b); see also Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264, 1265 (R.I.1998). However, as recently echoed in State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I.2011), “the appointed counsel's determination of frivolousness......