Lyons v. State
43 A.3d 62
R.I.2012Background
- Lyons was convicted in 1996 of two counts of first-degree child molestation and sentenced to concurrent 50-year terms with 25 years to serve; remainder suspended.
- This Court affirmed Lyons I on direct appeal.
- Lyons filed a 2006 postconviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, denied and affirmed on appeal (Lyons II).
- Lyons filed a second PCR in 2008 raising several arguments including actual innocence, jury note issues, statute of limitations, sentencing clarity, and parole denial; Superior Court denied as barred by res judicata or merit.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews PCR denials de novo on questions of law and reviews factual findings for clear error; res judicata bars relitigating issues that could have been raised earlier.
- The sole issue not barred by res judicata is the parole board’s denial conditioned on attending a sex-offender-treatment program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence shows actual innocence to warrant relief | Lyons argues new pediatrician deposition undermines trial evidence | State contends evidence was available at first PCR and had little probative value | barred by res judicata; evidence was available and litigated earlier. |
| Whether a posttrial jury note requirement was violated | Lyons contends jury note existence should have been addressed | Issue not raised in first PCR; improper to relitigate | barred by res judicata. |
| Whether statute of limitations defense was waived due to timeliness | Lyons asserts limitations expired for first-degree molestation | Limitations defense must be raised at trial or it's waived | barred by res judicata; defense not raised previously. |
| Whether lack of sentencing clarity regarding probation taints judgment | Inconsistency between oral sentence and written judgment | Res judicata bars this claim; could have been raised earlier | barred by res judicata. |
| Whether parole denial violated due process by conditioning on SOTP participation | Parole board acted arbitrarily in requiring SOTP | Parole board has broad discretion; no due process violation | not barred; affirmed parole-board discretion and decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. State, 725 A.2d 271 (R.I.1999) (direct appeal (Lyons I))
- Lyons v. State, 909 A.2d 490 (R.I.2006) (PCR denial affirmed (Lyons II))
- Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I.2011) (statute-of-limitations defense must be raised at trial (PCR context))
- Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615 (R.I.2009) (FERRELL emphasizes failure to raise issue first PCR bars litigation)
- Bernard v. Vose, 730 A.2d 30 (R.I.1999) (parole denial based on SOTP not a due process violation)
- Estrada v. Walker, 743 A.2d 1026 (R.I.1999) (no constitutional right to parole; due process requires opportunity to be heard)
- State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I.2011) (postconviction standard of review; burden on applicant)
- O'Rourke, 463 A.2d 1328 (R.I.1983) (probation after suspended sentence; referenced in sentencing discussion)