Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s denial and dismissal of Ricardo Hernandez’s application for postconviction relief. The Court held that appointed counsel must act as an advocate rather than merely as an independent screening agent and that Hernandez was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the proposed dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether appointed postconviction-relief counsel must act as the applicant's advocate under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-5 and the Shatney line of cases, rather than as an independent or objective screening attorney.
- Whether the Superior Court provided Hernandez a meaningful opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal of his postconviction-relief application under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-6(b).
- Whether the hearing justice failed to probe the potential existence of genuine issues of material fact.
Holdings
- Appointed counsel in a postconviction-relief proceeding must act as an advocate for the applicant after appointment under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-5. Counsel may seek withdrawal under Shatney after a reasonable investigation shows that some or all claims lack merit, but Shatney does not authorize appointment of an objective or independent lawyer who does not represent the applicant.
- Before dismissing a postconviction-relief application under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-6(b), the hearing justice must provide the applicant a meaningful opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal; merely allowing the applicant to state whether he wishes to proceed pro se after counsel's withdrawal, followed by immediate denial, is insufficient.
- The Court did not decide whether the hearing justice independently failed to probe the potential existence of genuine issues of material fact because the judgment was vacated on the counsel and meaningful-opportunity grounds.
Key quotations
“Importantly, neither Shatney “nor its progeny contemplates the appointment of an objective or independent lawyer who does not represent the applicant” (-5-)
“Nonetheless, the description by counsel of his belief as to his role in this case leads to the inevitable conclusion that he was not acting as a zealous advocate, despite the meticulous nature of his work.” (-6-)
“Although we have not drawn a bright line between what constitutes an opportunity to respond and what does not, our case law has stated that the opportunity to respond must be “meaningful[,]” regardless of the merits of the application.” (-8-)
Factual background
In 1998, Hernandez was sentenced to sixty-three years at the Adult Correctional Institutions after a jury convicted him in three consolidated criminal cases of multiple sexual-assault, assault, firearm, and related offenses. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. In 2008, he sought postconviction relief, and appointed counsel conducted an extensive investigation but characterized counsel's role as a limited, independent screening function under Shatney. After counsel withdrew, the hearing justice denied the application without giving Hernandez a meaningful opportunity to respond to the proposed dismissal.
Procedural history
Hernandez was convicted in 1998 and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed an application for postconviction relief in 2008, and appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Shatney after concluding that the claims lacked merit. The Superior Court granted counsel's motion, denied the application the same day, and entered final judgment. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
Remand instructions
Vacate the Superior Court judgment and remand with directions to appoint counsel for Hernandez in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-5, Shatney, and its progeny.