Darren Gomes v. State of Rhode Island
161 A.3d 511
| R.I. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Gomes pleaded nolo contendere to armed assault in a dwelling (30-year sentence: 12 to serve, 18 suspended) and carrying a pistol without a license (concurrent suspended sentence).
- Gomes was paroled July 1, 2009; in early 2013 he was involved in two incidents with his ex‑girlfriend leading to charges and a Rule 32(f) probation‑violation notice (breaking and entering; domestic assault).
- At the May 23, 2013 violation proceeding Gomes, represented by privately retained counsel, emotionally reacted when the complaining witness appeared; after a sidebar his attorney told him to admit the violation and Gomes orally admitted violating probation.
- The violation judge conducted a colloquy, found the admission voluntary, and reinstated nine years of the previously suspended term to be served.
- Gomes filed for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/contact witnesses; failure to communicate offers) and that his admission was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary; the Superior Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, focusing on lack of prejudice and the adequacy of the court’s colloquy ensuring a knowing and voluntary admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/contact witnesses (landlord, parole board, ex‑girlfriend) | Gomes: counsel’s failure to investigate deprived him of a viable defense to the breaking‑and‑entering charge and led to admission under duress | State: any investigative failures would not have changed the outcome because ample evidence supported violation | Held: Even assuming deficient performance, Gomes failed to show prejudice—there was sufficient evidence to find a violation |
| Failure to communicate plea/offers (timing of 9‑year and 12‑year offers) | Gomes: counsel didn’t timely convey offers; thus he lost the opportunity to make an informed decision | State: the nine‑year deal was ultimately accepted and received, so no prejudice resulted | Held: No prejudice; securing a shorter sentence than the maximum makes prejudice difficult to prove; Gomes got the nine‑year disposition |
| Knowing, intelligent, voluntary nature of admission (Rule 11‑type colloquy) | Gomes: emotional distress and panic undermined voluntariness and understanding of rights | State: magistrate conducted an appropriate colloquy; rights were explained and Gomes answered affirmatively | Held: Admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; colloquy adequate despite earlier emotion |
| Applicability of Rule 11 standards to probation‑violation admission | Gomes: invokes Rule 11 concerns about plea advisement | State: Rule 11 is not strictly required; waiver need only be knowingly and voluntarily made with adequate inquiry | Held: Court’s inquiry met the standard for waiving a revocation hearing; detailed Rule 11 formalities are not required in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Gilbert, 984 A.2d 26 (R.I. 2009) (right to counsel at probation‑violation hearing when liberty at stake)
- Perkins v. State, 78 A.3d 764 (R.I. 2013) (applicant bears burden in postconviction relief)
- Neufville v. State, 13 A.3d 607 (R.I. 2011) (securing a lesser sentence reduces likelihood of showing prejudice)
- State v. Pires, 525 A.2d 1313 (R.I. 1987) (discussion of limits on using new offenses to justify harsher revocation sentence)