Anthony Lipscomb v. State of Rhode Island
144 A.3d 299
| R.I. | 2016Background
- Anthony Lipscomb pled nolo contendere in three separate state drug cases (2000, 2002, 2003) and later sought postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise or pursue motions to suppress and for misleading him about a confidential informant.
- Lipscomb initially filed pro se in 2009; his verified postconviction application was filed in 2012. A Superior Court hearing followed in February 2013; Lipscomb testified by deposition (incarcerated federally).
- Attorneys Lutes (2000), Smith (2002), and Corley (2003) testified that they considered suppression issues as part of their standard practice, reviewed files, and advised Lipscomb; each secured favorable dispositions (reduced charges, concurrent sentences, drug court participation, probation).
- The hearing justice found the attorneys credible and Lipscomb not credible, concluding no constitutionally deficient performance and denying relief in June–July 2013.
- Lipscomb appealed, arguing the hearing justice misconceived testimony (inconsistencies) and misinterpreted the Rule 48(a) notation about the confidential informant; the State urged affirmance based on credibility findings and lack of proof of deficiency or prejudice.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, applying Strickland, deferring to credibility findings and concluding Lipscomb failed to meet the Strickland performance prong (and therefore need not reach prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lutes rendered ineffective assistance by not advising/suppressing the 2000 search | Lipscomb: Lutes didn’t discuss or advise on a suppression motion; would have sought suppression/ trial if advised | State: Lutes had standard practice of discussing suppression; recollection and favorable plea indicate competent representation | Court: No deficiency; Lutes credible; plea and facts support that suppression unlikely to succeed |
| Whether Smith rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise about suppression after 2001 traffic stop (2002 plea) | Lipscomb: Smith did not tell him suppression was an option; would have pursued it | State: Smith recalled discussing issues and drug‑court strategy; plea to treatment program was reasonable strategy | Court: No deficiency; Smith credible; drug‑court resolution was a reasonable strategy |
| Whether Corley rendered ineffective assistance or misled Lipscomb about confidential informant (2003 plea) | Lipscomb: Corley knew informant didn’t exist (based on later file review) and misled him; would have gone to trial if informed | State: Corley sought disclosure, filed motions, and obtained favorable amendment/plea; Rule 48(a) wording ≠ concession that informant didn’t exist | Court: No deficiency; no specific misrepresentation shown; favorable disposition supports competent counsel |
| Whether remand for further evidence on prejudice is warranted | Lipscomb: Requests remand to present more evidence of prejudice from deficient counsel | State: No remand needed because applicant failed to show deficiency or prejudice | Court: Denied remand; applicant failed Strickland’s first prong, and negotiated pleas produced favorable outcomes making prejudice unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 71 A.3d 458 (R.I. 2013) (postconviction relief and Strickland framework)
- Chapdelaine v. State, 32 A.3d 937 (R.I. 2011) (standards for postconviction review)
- Jolly v. Wall, 59 A.3d 133 (R.I. 2013) (deference to hearing justice factual findings)
- Anderson v. State, 45 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2012) (factual-findings deference in postconviction proceedings)
- Guerrero v. State, 47 A.3d 289 (R.I. 2012) (credibility determinations reviewed for clear error)
- Rice v. State, 38 A.3d 9 (R.I. 2012) (presumption of reasonable attorney performance)
- Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311 (R.I. 2009) (competence standard for counsel)
- Moniz v. State, 933 A.2d 691 (R.I. 2007) (ineffective assistance principles)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Neufville v. State, 13 A.3d 607 (R.I. 2011) (prejudice inquiry where conviction follows plea)
- Armenakes v. State, 821 A.2d 239 (R.I. 2003) (collateral consequences from pleading and postconviction challenges)
- United States v. Lipscomb, 539 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2008) (federal convictions and sentencing enhancement context)