Pedro Reyes v. State of Rhode Island
141 A.3d 644
| R.I. | 2016Background
- In 1994 Reyes pleaded nolo contendere to an amended charge of maintaining a narcotics nuisance after the state dismissed a distribution/count; he signed English and Spanish plea forms and answered the court in English at a short colloquy. The trial justice found a factual basis and imposed a two-year suspended sentence with probation.
- Years later Reyes was convicted of other offenses; the 1994 plea became a predicate for a habitual-offender enhancement. In 2013 he filed a pro se postconviction-relief (PCR) application claiming his plea was not knowing/voluntary and that trial counsel was ineffective (failure to investigate, failure to use an interpreter, failure to interview co‑defendants).
- The court appointed postconviction counsel under §10-9.1-5; that counsel investigated (including searching for bail-hearing transcripts), concluded the claims lacked merit, filed a Shatney no‑merit memorandum, and moved to withdraw. Reyes objected and proceeded pro se after the court granted withdrawal.
- After withdrawal Reyes submitted a telephone "statement" by codefendant Ismael Cepeda (not sworn in person; notarized over the phone). The hearing justice considered the statement but found it inadmissible/unpersuasive and granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal under §10-9.1-6(c), concluding no genuine issue of material fact and that Reyes could not prove Strickland prejudice.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: (1) the Rule 11 colloquy and lack of sua sponte interpreter appointment were proper; (2) Strickland (performance + prejudice) governs ineffective-assistance claims and the court abandons any residual ‘‘farce-and-mockery’’ standard for private counsel; (3) the Cepeda phone statement was inadmissible/hearsay and did not create a genuine issue of material fact; and (4) postconviction counsel complied with §10-9.1-5 and Shatney in filing the no‑merit memorandum and withdrawing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy / interpreter | Trial court should have ensured interpreter or otherwise ensured full understanding; plea not knowing/voluntary | Colloquy showed Reyes understood and answered in English; no request for interpreter; appointment discretionary | Plea satisfied Rule 11; no abuse of discretion for not appointing an interpreter sua sponte |
| Applicable standard for ineffective assistance | Trial counsel was ineffective (investigation/communication); postconviction relief warranted | Strickland governs; where plea gave favorable disposition, prejudice hard to show | Strickland performance + prejudice test applies; reject older "farce-and-mockery" language |
| Sufficiency of Cepeda statement to create factual dispute | Cepeda’s statement (telephone, notarized) exculpates Reyes and creates a genuine issue about counsel’s failure to investigate | Statement is hearsay/unsworn/not admissible to oppose summary disposition; irrelevant to amended charge | Cepeda statement inadmissible and insufficient to defeat summary dismissal; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Adequacy of postconviction counsel / Shatney process | Appointed counsel failed to investigate (didn't interview trial counsel; no investigator); withdrawal premature leaving Reyes uncounseled | Counsel conducted reasonable investigation, prepared a comprehensive no‑merit memorandum, complied with Shatney; withdrawal appropriate | Postconviction counsel complied with §10-9.1-5 and Shatney; withdrawal and summary dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (recognition of constitutional rights waived by plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (effective assistance applies to retained and appointed counsel alike)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (no diminished protection for defendants with retained counsel)
- Palmigiano v. State, 387 A.2d 1382 (summary‑dismissal standards in Rhode Island PCR context)
- Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130 (procedure for no‑merit memorandum and withdrawal of appointed PCR counsel)
- State v. Ibrahim, 862 A.2d 787 (trial court discretion on interpreter appointment)
- State v. Lopez-Navor, 951 A.2d 508 (court’s discretion in interpreter selection and appointment)
- Neufville v. State, 13 A.3d 607 (discussion of prejudice when plea produced favorable sentence)
- State v. Reyes, 984 A.2d 606 (appellate opinion describing later convictions relevant to procedural posture)