Higham v. State
45 A.3d 1180
R.I.2012Background
- Higham was convicted in 2003 of two counts of first-degree child molestation against his stepson's seven-year-old daughter.
- He received concurrent 40-year terms, with 20 years to serve and 20 years suspended with probation.
- In 2006, Higham filed a pro se postconviction-relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; counsel was appointed but later sought to withdraw.
- A December 5, 2008 stipulation, signed by Higham and his attorney, resolved the first PCR by dismissing with prejudice in exchange for a reduced sentence after a hearing.
- Higham sought parole in March 2009; parole was denied for his refusal to acknowledge guilt and to complete the sex-offender-treatment program (SOTP).
- On September 25, 2009, Higham filed a second pro se PCR alleging unlawful parole denial, jury misconduct, and actual innocence; a hearing was held October 30, 2009, and relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at second PCR hearing | Higham: no appointed counsel though pro se status declared | State: waiver of counsel allowed; hearing conducted per Shatney | No error; hearing complied with Shatney; Higham allowed to proceed pro se |
| Review of parole denial in PCR proceeding | Higham: parole denial should be reviewable in PCR | State: parole denial not reviewable in PCR; but record supports denial | Parole denial review appropriate in PCR context; no remand needed; upheld denial on merits |
| Res judicata on actual innocence and jury-misconduct claims | Higham: new actual-innocence and juror-misconduct claims not barred | State: claims identical to those raised in first PCR; barred | Both claims barred by res judicata; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130 (R.I. 2000) (postconviction counsel withdrawal procedure)
- Ouimette v. State, 117 R.I. 361, 367 A.2d 704 (R.I. 1976) (parole review via PCR; viability of review)
- Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I. 2011) (elements of res judicata in PCR; identity of issues)
- Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615 (R.I. 2009) (res judicata bar when issue not raised earlier)
- Bernard v. Vose, 730 A.2d 30 (R.I. 1999) (parole denial based on SOTP participation within board discretion)
- Lennon v. Dacomed Corp., 901 A.2d 582 (R.I. 2006) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes adjudication on the merits)
- State v. Ouimette, 367 A.2d 708 (R.I. 1976) (parole-discretion principles and due process considerations)
- State v. Tillinghast, 609 A.2d 217 (R.I. 1992) (parole proceedings and due process considerations)
- State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I. 2011) (reaffirmation of res judicata framework in PCR)