Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Joseph Jolly’s application for postconviction relief following his nolo contendere pleas to three counts of second-degree child molestation. The court held that Jolly’s plea was voluntary and that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged coercion or advice concerning prescription medication. The court also rejected his request for an adverse inference from the state’s failure to call his plea attorney as a witness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jolly's nolo contendere pleas were involuntary because he had taken prescription medication before the plea hearing.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by pressuring Jolly to plead, advising him to conceal his medication use, or otherwise failing to provide competent plea advice.
- Whether the Superior Court should have drawn an adverse inference against the State from its failure to call Jolly's plea attorney as a witness at the postconviction-relief hearing.
Holdings
- Jolly failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his pleas were involuntary. The plea colloquy supported the finding that he understood the agreement and consequences and entered the pleas voluntarily, without undue force or coercion.
- Jolly failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not prove that counsel's plea advice or conduct was constitutionally deficient or that, absent counsel's alleged errors, he would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial.
- The Superior Court was not required to draw an adverse inference against the State for failing to call Jolly's plea attorney. An adverse inference is permissive, and no inference arises when the witness is equally accessible to both parties.
Key quotations
“We employ a de novo standard of review with regard to “questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an alleged violation of an applicant’s constitutional rights * * *.”” (p. 7)
“At the postconviction-relief hearing, Jolly bore the burden of proving “that, but for his attorney’s errors, he would not have entered a [nolo contendere] plea, but rather would have proceeded to trial.”” (p. 8)
“Under this rule, the hearing justice could have chosen to draw an adverse inference against the state for its failure to call Jolly’s attorney (assuming arguendo that he was available), but he was under no obligation to draw such an inference.” (p. 10)
Factual background
Jolly was indicted on three counts of second-degree child molestation and one count of first-degree child molestation. He entered nolo contendere pleas to the three second-degree counts under an agreement dismissing the first-degree charge and received a sentence of twenty years, with five years to serve and fifteen years suspended with probation. In postconviction proceedings, he claimed that prescription medication, including lorazepam, rendered his plea involuntary and that counsel pressured him to plead and advised him not to disclose the medication. The Superior Court credited the plea colloquy and found that Jolly understood the plea and voluntarily chose to enter it.
Procedural history
Jolly pleaded nolo contendere pursuant to a plea agreement, and the first-degree child-molestation charge was dismissed. He later sought postconviction relief, asserting that his plea was involuntary because he had taken prescription medication and that counsel had coerced him and advised him not to disclose the medication. After a five-day evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied relief. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The record was remanded to the Superior Court.