Volume 180 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The plaintiff, Boghos Terzian, appealed from a June 12, 2015 final judgment entered following a bench decision in Providence County Superior Court, which granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Public Service Employees' Local Union Number 1033 (the Union) and James J. Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer for the City of Providence. Mr. Terzian contended on appeal that the hearing justice erred in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment because, in his view, the City of Providence could not suspend and ultimately terminate him for off-duty conduct and because the Union did not comply with its duty to fairly represent him. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Terzian had waived his arguments on appeal because he failed to adequately brief them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The petitioner, Tracey Barros, appealed from the May 18, 2015 written decision of a justice in Providence County Superior Court, denying his application for postconviction relief. He contended on appeal that "indigent funding ought to have been provided, in the postconviction proceeding, to hire the proposed expert witness to demonstrate the availability of the issue of false confession and to establish trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to utilize the available defense at trial." It was further his contention on appeal that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by both his trial attorney and his appellate attorney with respect to his original criminal case. Lastly, he averred that the justice should have recused himself from hearing the instant application for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court held that the justice presiding over Mr. Barros's application for postconviction relief did not err in denying him funds to hire an expert on false confessions. Additionally, in the Supreme Court's judgment, Mr. Barros was not denied the effective assistance of counsel by either his trial counsel or his appellate counsel. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the justice need not have recused himself from presiding over the application for postconviction relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.