Javier Merida v. State of Rhode Island
2014 R.I. LEXIS 106
R.I.2014Background
- Merida was convicted of two counts of first-degree and one count of second-degree child molestation; direct appeal affirmed.
- He applied for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The Superior Court denied the postconviction relief application.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews such claims de novo for mixed questions of law and fact, with deference to trial court credibility findings.
- The court addressed multiple trial-counsel issues: investigation of motive to lie, medical testimony, continuance, whether Merida testified, cross-examination of Lisa, order of proof, and waiver of additional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not investigating motive to lie? | Merida argues undisclosed family tensions could reveal Betsy’s motive to fabricate. | State asserts counsel reasonably declined to pursue since specifics were unknown and credibility favored trial strategy. | Not deficient; credibility favored trial counsel's strategic choice. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not presenting a medical expert to rebut Dr. Barron? | Expert testimony could have rebutted equivocal medical findings. | Barron’s testimony was equivocal; existing counsel review (Dr. Crane) aligned and did not contradict Barron. | Not deficient; no reliable contrary medical evidence; strategic decision approved. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a continuance to review Barron’s referenced article? | A continuance could have enabled fuller consideration of Barron’s findings. | Continuance would have unduly lengthened proceedings with little impact given equivocal testimony. | Not deficient; tactical decision supported. |
| Did trial counsel’s handling of Merida’s testimony violate the right to testify? | Merida wanted to testify; counsel allegedly prevented it. | Counsel discussed pros/cons, conducted a mock trial, and recommended against testifying due to risk of credibility issues. | Not deficient; trial court credible finding that Merida knowingly accepted counsel’s recommendation. |
| Did trial counsel err in cross-examining Lisa and in the order of witness proof? | Cross-exam should focus on Lisa; order of proof prejudiced Merida. | Strategic cross-examination plan with a focus on stronger material; order immaterial. | Not deficient; trial court found strategic choices reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Linde v. State, 78 A.3d 738 (R.I. 2013) (reaffirms deferential review and Strickland framework in Rhode Island)
- Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311 (R.I. 2009) (clarifies deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Doctor v. State, 865 A.2d 1064 (R.I. 2005) (credibility determinations reviewed on appeal)
- Hazard v. State, 968 A.2d 886 (R.I. 2009) (explains standard for factual/mixed questions in postconviction review)