Volume 197 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

Sebastian Atryzek sought review of a Superior Court judgment denying his application for postconviction relief from judgments of conviction for failing to register as a sex offender in violation of G.L. 1956 chapter 37.1 of title 11. Before the Court on certiorari, petitioner argued that his duty to register expired ten years after his supervised probation ended in 2000, requiring vacation of his convictions for failure to register in 2012 and 2013. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to advise him that he had potentially viable defenses before he pled nolo contendere to the failure to register charges. The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to its recent decision in State v. Gibson, 182 A.3d 540 (R.I. 2018), petitioner had a duty to register that extended for ten years from the expiration of the sentence for his underlying offense. Additionally, the petitioner's various counsel were not constitutionally deficient for any failure to anticipate the Court's decision in Gibson. Accordingly, the Court quashed the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the record to the Superior Court for further factfinding to determine when petitioner's sentence for his underlying offense expired.

The defendant, Bruce MacNeil, was before the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 23, 2017 judgment of conviction on one count of second-degree sexual assault following a jury trial in the Superior Court. The defendant contended on appeal that the trial justice abused his discretion by: (1) sustaining the prosecutor's objection to defense counsel's question to the complaining witness relative to counseling that that witness had received (2) not striking the testimony of defendant's wife regarding any contact by her with the complaining witness or his family after the alleged assault and (3) overruling defense counsel's objection to the wife's testimony regarding the proximity of the MacNeils' home to an elementary school. After having considered the arguments of both the defendant and the state, the Supreme Court concluded that there had been no reversible error on the part of the trial justice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.

In 2000, Mariano Jimenez was convicted of several felonies and, in 2005, those convictions were affirmed by this Court. Subsequently, Mr. Jimenez applied for postconviction relief, which was denied on September 19, 2016. Thereafter, on November 15, 2016, Mr. Jimenez petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment entered in Providence County Superior Court denying that application. Mr. Jimenez contended that the hearing justice erred in denying his application for postconviction relief for the following reasons: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective due to his allegedly not having provided Mr. Jimenez with certain documents (2) his trial counsel was ineffective due to his allegedly not having prepared him to testify on his own behalf at trial and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective because she did not argue ineffective assistance of trial counsel before this Court in the course of the direct appeal of the convictions. On December 1, 2017, this Court granted Mr. Jimenez's petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court found no merit in Mr. Jimenez's contentions and held that the hearing justice did not err in denying Mr. Jimenez's application for postconviction relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The plaintiff, ostensibly acting as successor executor to the wills of two former clients, appealed from the Superior Court's judgment dismissing his probate court appeals for his failure to comply with several court orders. The plaintiff had appealed to the Superior Court from the Providence Probate Court's dismissal of his petitions to probate the wills of two sisters for whom the plaintiff had been engaged to perform some legal services. The plaintiff had also appealed to the Superior Court from the Cranston Probate Court's issuance of guardianship decrees in favor of the defendants over the two sisters (the defendants' aunts), orders disqualifying the plaintiff from representing the sisters, and an order granting the co-guardians a citation compelling the plaintiff to provide testimony about the sisters' assets. After two years of repeatedly delayed proceedings in Superior Court due to the plaintiff's unwillingness to comply with the Superior Court's orders to deposit the sisters' financial assets in the plaintiff's possession into the Registry of the Superior Court, the Superior Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's appeals pursuant to Rule 41(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that all of the probate court's actions and the dismissal of his probate court appeals were in error. The Supreme Court held that only one of the plaintiff's appeals was properly before the Court because he was required to pay the filing fee for each of the five notices of appeal filed in the Superior Court, but the plaintiff had paid only one filing fee. With respect to the one appeal properly before it, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court justice's dismissal of the appeal was amply justified by the plaintiff's repeated refusal to comply with the court's orders, including a contempt order imposing a fine for each day the plaintiff failed to deposit the entire sum of money ordered into the Registry of the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The defendant, Joseph Silva, appealed his conviction for one count of reckless driving, for which he was sentenced to one year at the Adult Correctional Institutions, the entirety of which was suspended, with probation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court accepted the trial justice's credibility determinations and affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial. In doing so, the Court reasoned that the trial justice thoroughly described his decision to deny defendant's motion for a new trial, wherein he took into account the evidence in light of the jury charge, independently assessed the evidence, and determined that he would have reached the same conclusion as the jury. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.