res judicata within the postconviction-relief context doctrine in Rhode Island

2013Thornton then filed an affidavit, dated April 24, 2010, in which he stated that “this newly discovered evidence [had] never been seen by [him] nor was it ever provided to [him] in discovery before *541 trial.” 10 A Res Judicata “Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies * * * the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars relit-igation of the same issues between the same parties after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding.” Anderson, 45 A.3d at 602 (quoting Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901, 910 (R.I.2011)).

2012The doctrine of res judicata, with respect to postconviction relief, has been articulated by this Court as follows: “Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies [sic ] the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars ‘reliti-gation of the same issues between the same parties’ after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding. * * * An applicant is likewise precluded from raising new issues in a subsequent application, where such issues were not set forth in the first postconviction-relief application, and the applicant fails to establish a reason why his or her claims co

2014This Court has repeatedly stated that the doctrine of res judicata “provides a procedural bar not only to issues that have been raised and decided in a previous postconviction-relief proceeding, but also to the relitigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, even if the particular issue was not raised.” Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615, 620 (R.I.2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Price v. Wall, 31 A.3d 995, 999 (R.I.2011).

2013If, in a subsequent application for postconviction relief, an applicant raises issues not set forth in his or her initial application, the applicant is precluded from raising those new issues—absent an “interest of justice” showing—unless he or she “establishes] a reason why his or her claims could not have been presented initially.” Id. (quoting Brown, 32 A.3d at 910 and Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615, 621 (R.I.2009)).

2012“An applicant is likewise precluded from raising new issues in a subsequent application, where such issues were not set forth in the first postconviction-relief application, and the applicant fails to establish a reason why his or her claims could not have been presented initially.” Id. (citing Ramirez v. State, 933 A.2d 1110, 1112 (R.I.2007)).

2012“Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies * * * the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars ‘relitigation of the same issues between the same parties’ after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding.” Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901, 910 (R.I.2011) (quoting Figueroa v. State, 897 A.2d 55, 56 (R.I.2006) (mem.)).

2014“Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies * * * the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding.” State v. Thornton, 68 A.3d 533, 541 (R.I.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. State, 45 A.3d 594, 602 (R.I.2012).

2013Thornton then filed an affidavit, dated April 24, 2010, in which he stated that “this newly discovered evidence [had] never been seen by [him] nor was it ever provided to [him] in discovery before *541 trial.” 10 A Res Judicata “Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies * * * the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars relit-igation of the same issues between the same parties after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding.” Anderson, 45 A.3d at 602 (quoting Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901, 910 (R.I.2011)).

2014“Section 10-9.1-8, which codifies * * * the doctrine of res judicata within the postconviction-relief context, bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties after a final judgment has entered in a prior proceeding.” State v. Thornton, 68 A.3d 533, 541 (R.I.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. State, 45 A.3d 594, 602 (R.I.2012).

2014This Court has repeatedly stated that the doctrine of res judicata “provides a procedural bar not only to issues that have been raised and decided in a previous postconviction-relief proceeding, but also to the relitigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, even if the particular issue was not raised.” Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615, 620 (R.I.2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Price v. Wall, 31 A.3d 995, 999 (R.I.2011).

2012“An applicant is likewise precluded from raising new issues in a subsequent application, where such issues were not set forth in the first postconviction-relief application, and the applicant fails to establish a reason why his or her claims could not have been presented initially.” Id. (citing Ramirez v. State, 933 A.2d 1110, 1112 (R.I.2007)).

2011Figueroa v. State, 897 A.2d 55, 56 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (quoting Carillo v. Moran, 463 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I.1983)).