Anthony Perkins v. State of Rhode Island, 2013 R.I. LEXIS 137

Perkins pled nolo contendere to first-degree robbery on Oct 15, 1999 and received 20-year sentence with nine to serve and eleven suspended, plus probation.
While on parole for the robbery sentence, Perkins faced charges of second-degree child molestation based on pre-parole conduct.
On July 25, 2003 Perkins pled nolo contendere to two counts of second-degree child molestation; ten-year suspended sentence with ten years’ probation, running concurrently with robbery, plus sex-offender registration and treatment.
On Sept 14, 2006 Perkins filed a postconviction-relief claim alleging his former attorney gave ineffective assistance by misadvising about probation revocation and incarceration if he did not plead to the child-molestation charges.
The trial justice found no credible evidence that the alleged erroneous advice was given and denied postconviction relief, noting Perkins’ self-serving testimony and inconsistencies.
On appeal, Perkins challenged the denial under the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s alleged advice was deficient under Strickland	Perkins argues he received erroneous advice about probation consequences.	State contends evidence does not prove the advice was given or that it was deficient.	No clear error; appellant failed to prove advice was given or deficient.
Whether any alleged deficiency prejudiced Perkins under Strickland	Erroneous advice would have altered the outcome of the plea.	Even if advice occurred, prejudice is not shown because plea resulted in shorter sentence than potential trial would have.	Perkins failed to show a reasonable probability of different outcome.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hazard v. State, 64 A.3d 749 (R.I. 2013) (great deference to trial court findings in postconviction relief)
Neufville v. State, 13 A.3d 607 (R.I. 2011) (de novo review on mixed questions of law and fact)
Figueroa, 639 A.2d 495 (R.I. 1994) (plea misrepresentations; no proven trial outcome guarantee)
Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311 (R.I. 2009) (prejudice prong requires showing difference at trial)
Pelletier v. Laureanno, 46 A.3d 28 (R.I. 2012) (credibility of uncontradicted testimony; deference to trial court)
State v. Bergevine, 883 A.2d 1158 (R.I. 2005) (probation-before-conviction notions deemed illogical; not viability)
State v. Fuentes, 433 A.2d 184 (R.I. 1981) (potentially harsher trial penalties; plea outcome considerations)