State v. Laurence
18 A.3d 512
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Laurence convicted of first‑degree murder, conspiracy, and breaking and entering; pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings recounted in prior direct appeal.
- Postconviction‑relief petition filed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, police/ADO surveillance of trial preparation, and concealment of psychiatric records.
- Shatney memorandum appointed to assess merits; three claims distilled: O'Connor conflict, spying claim, psychiatric records; Dwyer advised on merits.
- Trial court granted summary disposition after reviewing Shatney memorandum and record evidence, denying postconviction relief.
- Laurence sought deposition discovery to prove spying; court denied depositions and concluded no credible evidence of intrusion.
- Superior Court judgment denying postconviction relief affirmed as barred by res judicata and supported by record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether O'Connor's conflict violated Laurence's right to counsel | Laurence argues O'Connor breached loyalty via Nelson deal | O'Connor had no state agent role and conflict not prejudicial | Claim barred by res judicata; no new relief available |
| Whether Sollitto’s failure to raise O'Connor conflict and other faults denied effective counsel | Sollitto failed to pursue relevant issues at suppression | Shatney process limited scope; issues deemed meritless | Waived; not preserved; rejected as basis for relief |
| Whether spying claims entitle deposition/discovery prior to postconviction relief | Need depositions and discovery to prove in-cell surveillance | No credible evidence of videotaping; discovery improper without door opened | Not entitled to depositions; no open door for discovery; evidence insufficient |
| Whether the court properly denied relief on spying claim under discovery standards | State possessed and used spying materials against him | No materials or tapes were provided to or used by state; affidavit credibility lacking | Correct; no material fact showing intrusion; summary disposition appropriate |
| Whether the postconviction decision was correct under res judicata and statutory standards | Claims not previously adjudicated should be heard | Claims adjudicated and/framed by prior direct appeal; barred | Affirmed; precludes new postconviction relief on finality grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Otero v. State, 996 A.2d 667 (R.I. 2010) (postconviction relief standard of review and burden)
- Ballard v. State, 983 A.2d 264 (R.I. 2009) (general postconviction relief principles; deference to findings)
- Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 2001) (elements of res judicata requirement in postconviction)
- Thornton v. State, 948 A.2d 312 (R.I. 2008) (Shatney procedure and counsel withdrawal; preserve issues)
- Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130 (R.I. 2000) (procedural framework for postconviction relief with appointed counsel)
- Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264 (R.I. 1998) (trial court may deny evidentiary hearing if no genuine issue of material fact)
- State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004) (deposition requests in postconviction context not at issue)
- Powers v. State, 734 A.2d 508 (R.I. 1999) (depositions not at issue; relevance to relief)