198 A.3d 528
R.I.2019Background
- In 2005 Harold Drew was convicted of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and three counts of breaking and entering arising from a 2003 homicide; he received consecutive life terms and concurrent 10-year terms.
- This Court affirmed Drew’s convictions on direct appeal in 2007 and affirmed denial of a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence in 2013.
- In 2014 Drew filed a postconviction-relief application claiming error during trial-readback of an eyewitness’s testimony: he argued the trial justice read too little testimony (omitting portions material to witness positioning and possible shooter identity).
- Drew additionally contended trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions read back and for not preserving a complete record of what the jury heard.
- The Superior Court denied relief. On appeal to this Court Drew filed very short, largely unbriefed statements asserting missing transcript pages and claiming prejudice, but provided no citations to the record or legal authority.
- The Supreme Court considered the matter on a show-cause calendar and denied the appeal for failure to develop or support the claimed issues, thereby affirming the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether missing transcript pages / inadequate record of readback prejudiced Drew | Missing transcript pages and omitted testimony during jury readback prejudiced Drew and entitle him to relief | State implicitly argued the appeal is inadequately developed and preserved; no specific substantive defense briefed | Court held Drew failed to meaningfully develop the claim, cite the record, or provide authority; issue waived and appeal denied |
| Whether trial judge erred by reading too little of eyewitness testimony to the jury | Readback omitted critical positioning testimony that could support an alternate shooter theory | No developed argument that the omission was demonstrably harmful; appellee relied on procedural deficiencies | Court declined to review on the merits because Drew did not brief or cite record; claim waived |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to readback and not preserving a record | Counsel’s failure to object and to ensure transcript of readback constituted ineffective assistance | State not required to rebut an undeveloped claim on appeal; issue not adequately presented | Court found no developed ineffective-assistance argument presented; waived |
| Whether appellate relief should be granted based on procedural briefing failures | Appellant urged further review because missing pages favor the State and harm appellant’s preparation | State relied on appellate rules and precedents requiring developed briefing | Court applied raise-or-waive and briefing rules and denied appeal for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397 (R.I. 2007) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- State v. Drew, 79 A.3d 32 (R.I. 2013) (affirming denial of new-trial motion)
- Giammarco v. Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220 (R.I. 2017) (Rule 12A prebriefing requirements)
- Dunn’s Corners Fire District v. Westerly Ambulance Corps, 184 A.3d 230 (R.I. 2018) (failure to meaningfully brief an issue constitutes waiver)
- Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (issue waiver for undeveloped argument)
- Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555 (R.I. 2018) (failure to raise and develop issue on appeal waives it)
- McGarry v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015) (raise-or-waive rule enforcement)
- McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175 (R.I. 2016) (court will not scour record to support undeveloped claims)