Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of David A. Roscoe’s application for postconviction relief. The court held that the Superior Court properly followed the Shatney procedure in permitting appointed counsel to withdraw after filing a no-merit memorandum, and that Roscoe could proceed pro se without appointment of successor counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court properly allowed appointed postconviction-relief counsel to withdraw after counsel filed a no-merit memorandum and the court conducted a hearing under Shatney v. State.
- Whether the hearing justice was required to permit Roscoe to raise additional issues before allowing counsel to withdraw.
- Whether the hearing justice conducted a sufficient factual inquiry into Roscoe's claims before permitting withdrawal.
- Whether the hearing justice was required to appoint successor counsel after allowing appointed counsel to withdraw.
- Whether Roscoe's claims of judicial bias and insufficient evidence were properly cognizable in the postconviction-relief proceeding.
Holdings
- A hearing justice may permit appointed postconviction-relief counsel to withdraw when counsel files a no-merit memorandum detailing the review and potential issues, the court conducts a hearing with the applicant present, and the court independently determines that the claims lack arguable merit.
- A postconviction-relief applicant bears some responsibility during the Shatney hearing to dispute the contents of the no-merit memorandum or identify issues that appointed counsel overlooked or wrongly deemed frivolous.
- When appointed counsel is properly permitted to withdraw under Shatney because the postconviction-relief claims lack legal merit, the applicant may proceed pro se and is not entitled to appointment of successor counsel.
- Claims based on judicial bias known at the time of direct appeal, and claims that the trial evidence was legally insufficient or unpersuasive, should be raised on direct appeal rather than through a postconviction-relief application.
Key quotations
“Appointed counsel must file with the court and serve upon the applicant a motion to withdraw accompanied by a ‘no merit’ memorandum that details the nature and extent of his or her review of the case, lists each issue the applicant wished to raise, and explains why in counsel’s professional opinion those issues and any others that he or she may have investigated lacked merit.” (opinion at 5)
“Requiring the appointment of another attorney would defeat the purpose of allowing appointed attorneys to withdraw from postconviction-relief cases that lack legal merit.” (opinion at 9)
Factual background
In 1990, Roscoe was convicted of first-degree child molestation, second-degree child molestation, simple assault and battery, and intimidation of a witness or victim. He received thirty years imprisonment, with fifteen years to serve and fifteen years suspended with probation. After a 2003 simple-assault conviction led to a finding that he violated probation, the suspended fifteen years were vacated. Roscoe then sought postconviction relief, alleging judicial bias, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and insufficient evidence; appointed counsel concluded those claims lacked merit after reviewing the file, transcript, correspondence, and discussing the matter with Roscoe and trial counsel.
Procedural history
Roscoe was convicted in 1990 of several offenses and received a thirty-year sentence, with fifteen years to serve and fifteen years suspended with probation. After a later probation violation resulted in revocation of the suspended portion of his sentence, he filed an application for postconviction relief in 2005 alleging judicial bias, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence. Appointed counsel filed a no-merit memorandum and moved to withdraw; following a hearing, the motion was granted, Roscoe proceeded pro se at an evidentiary hearing, and the Superior Court denied relief. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The papers shall be remanded to the Superior Court.