findings hearing in Rhode Island

2022“In addition to examining the record for judicial error, ‘we inspect the record to discern if there is any legally competent evidence to support the findings of the hearing justice below.’” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1121 (R.I. 2004)).

2022“In addition to examining the record for judicial error, ‘we inspect the record to discern if there is any legally competent evidence to support the findings of the hearing justice below.’” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1121 (R.I. 2004)).

2010This Court will not disturb the findings of a hearing justice in the postconviction relief context "absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence." State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I. 2002); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 .

2010This Court will not disturb the findings of a hearing justice in the postcon-viction relief context “absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 .

2009“When this Court reviews a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, we will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice ‘absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.’ ” Thornton v. State, 948 A.2d 312, 316 (R.I.2008) (quoting State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002)); see also Gonder v. State, 935 A.2d 82, 85 (R.I.2007).

2009When this Court reviews a hearing justice’s decision with respect to an application for postconviction relief, it will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice “absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002); see Thornton, 948 A.2d at 316 ; Gonder, 935 A.2d at 85 .

2025This Court has further stated that “questions of fact concerning whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been -6- infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications, are reviewed de novo.” Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I. 2001).

2008In reviewing a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, this Court will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice “absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002); see also Gonder v. State, 935 A.2d 82, 84-85 (R.I.2007); Doctor v. State, 865 A.2d 1064, 1067 (R.I.2005); Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001).

2006The applicant “bears the burden of convincing this Court that the findings of the hearing justice were clearly wrong or that [he or] she overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. at 1123 (citing Vorgvongsa, 785 A.2d at 546 ).

2006The applicant “bears the burden of convincing this Court that the findings of the hearing justice were clearly wrong or that [he or] she overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. at 1123 (citing Vorgvongsa, 785 A.2d at 546 ).

2024“This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Id. (quoting Chapdelaine v. State, 32 A.3d 937, 941 (R.I. 2011)).

2022“This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Chapdelaine v. State, 32 A.3d 937, 941 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Gordon v. State, 18 A.3d 467, 473 (R.I. 2011)). 6 While we, in granting the state’s petition for certiorari, directed the parties to address whether the issue of Atryzek’s lifetime duty to register under the state’s “aggravated offense” theory was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, a revi

2023“We shall not disturb the findings of the trial justice unless it is established that he or she misconceived or overlooked relevant and material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.” Id. (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Sullivan, 6 A.3d 1104, 1111 (R.I. 2010)).

2014The Court does “not weigh the evidence on *415 certiorari, but only conduces a] review to examine questions of law raised in the petition.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Sullivan, 6 A.3d 1104, 1111 (R.I.2010) (quoting Greenberg, 951 A.2d at 489 ).

2011Further, if upon review “the record indicates that competent evidence supports the [hearing] justice’s findings, we shall not substitute our view of the evidence for his [or hers] even though a contrary conclusion could have been reached.” Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co. v. Bellini, 888 A.2d 957, 961 (R.I.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008If our review of the record before us “indicates that competent evidence supports the [hearing] justice’s findings, we shall not substitute our view of the evidence for his [or hers] even though a contrary conclusion could have been reached.” Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co. v. Bellini, 888 A.2d 957, 961 (R.I.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011In conducting appellate review, this Court “will not disturb the findings of a hearing justice in the postconviction relief context absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Page, 995 A.2d at 942 (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Washington, 989 A.2d at 98 .

2010However, this Court reviews in a de novo manner “questions of fact concerning whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications * * Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 ; Larngar, 918 A.2d at 855 ; Thomas, 794 A.2d at 993 . 18 We have frequently indicated that “[t]he law in Rhode Island is well settled that this Court will pattern its evaluations of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 10

2011In that document, plaintiff argues, inter alia, that the hearing justice should have considered the photographs that he had brought to the hearing, which photographs he asserts show his injuries that allegedly were inflicted by defendant. * This Court has stated that, “[w]hen reviewing the findings of a hearing justice sitting without a jury in a civil matter, it is well settled that this Court will not disturb those findings ‘unless such findings are clearly erroneous or unless the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence * * ” Thibaudeau v. Thibaudeau, 947 A.2d 243, 246 (R.

2008He characterized her testimony as having been “clear, concise, uncontradict-ed.” The hearing justice went on to enjoin defendant “from contacting, assaulting, molesting, [or] otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff at her home, on the street, elsewhere, directly or indirectly.” 3 He further stated to defendant: “You violate this restraining order, and you will be subject to both civil ramification and sanctions in the Family Court and criminal sanctions and ramification in the District Court.” Standard of Review When reviewing the findings of a hearing justice sitting without a jury in a civi

2009“When this Court reviews a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, we will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice ‘absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.’ ” Thornton v. State, 948 A.2d 312, 316 (R.I.2008) (quoting State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002)); see also Gonder v. State, 935 A.2d 82, 85 (R.I.2007).

2009When this Court reviews a hearing justice’s decision with respect to an application for postconviction relief, it will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice “absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002); see Thornton, 948 A.2d at 316 ; Gonder, 935 A.2d at 85 .

2001This Court will overturn the findings of a hearing justice at a postconviction relief proceeding “only when the hearing justice was clearly wrong or when it is clear that material evidence has been overlooked or misconceived.” State v. Brennan, 627 A.2d 842, 845 (R.I.1993).

1996State v. Brennan, 627 A.2d 842, 845 (R.I.1993).

2006In certain circumstances the Supreme Court has held that the agency, in rendering its final decision, is required to give deference to the findings of the hearing officer at the initial level. 7 See Environmental Scientific Corp. v. Durfee, 621 A.2d 200 , 207-08 (R.I. 1993).

1993Under our recent decision in Environmental Scientific Corp. v. Durfee, 621 A.2d 200 (R.I.1993), that is not correct.

2025When “reviewing a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, this Court will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2010This Court will not disturb the findings of a hearing justice in the postcon-viction relief context “absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing] justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” State v. Thomas, 794 A.2d 990, 993 (R.I.2002); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 .

2013In addition to examining the record for judicial error, “we inspect the record to discern if there is any legally competent evidence to support the findings of the hearing justice below.” Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1121 (R.I.2004) (citing Ryan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 787 A.2d 1191, 1193 (R.I.2002)).

2004Id.

2010However, this Court reviews in a de novo manner "questions of fact concerning whether a defendant's constitutional rights have been infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications * * *." Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 ; Larngar, 918 A.2d at 855 ; Thomas, 794 A.2d at 993 . [18] We have frequently indicated that "[t]he law in Rhode Island is well settled that this Court will pattern its evaluations of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 66

2010However, this Court reviews in a de novo manner “questions of fact concerning whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications * * Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001); see also Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 ; Larngar, 918 A.2d at 855 ; Thomas, 794 A.2d at 993 . 18 We have frequently indicated that “[t]he law in Rhode Island is well settled that this Court will pattern its evaluations of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 10

2009However, “this Court must review de novo the ultimate question of whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were infringed * * Kholi v. Wall, 911 A.2d 262, 264 (R.I.2006) (quoting Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1124 (R.I.2004)).

2007This Court will not disturb a hearing justice’s ruling unless an applicant can adequately show “ ‘that the findings of the hearing justice were clearly wrong or that [he or] she overlooked or misconceived material evidence.’” Kholi, 911 A.2d at 264 .

2022“This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Chapdelaine v. State, 32 A.3d 937, 941 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Gordon v. State, 18 A.3d 467, 473 (R.I. 2011)). 6 While we, in granting the state’s petition for certiorari, directed the parties to address whether the issue of Atryzek’s lifetime duty to register under the state’s “aggravated offense” theory was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, a revi

2019“To decide this [case], we must construe several statutory provisions.” Rose v. State, 92 A.3d 903, 906 (R.I. 2014).

2017Analysis Scope of Rule 26 Rule 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[pjarties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action * * “The philosophy underlying modern discovery is that prior to trial, all data relevant to the pending controversy should be disclosed unless the data is privileged.” Cabral v. Arruda, 556 A.2d 47, 48 (R.I. 1989).

2017“In addition to examining the record for judicial error, ‘we inspect the record to discern if there is any legally competent evidence to support the findings of the hearing justice below.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1121 (R.I. 2004)). “[Wjith respect to determining the scope of Rule 26, we have repeatedly employed a de novo standard of review.” Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc., 139 A.3d 379, 381 (R.I. 2016) (citing State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013)).

2017“In addition to examining the record for judicial error, ‘we inspect the record to discern if there is any legally competent evidence to support the findings of the hearing justice below.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1121 (R.I. 2004)). “[Wjith respect to determining the scope of Rule 26, we have repeatedly employed a de novo standard of review.” Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc., 139 A.3d 379, 381 (R.I. 2016) (citing State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013)).

2016See, e.g., South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon, 116 A.3d 204, 210 (R.I. 2015); Lembo v. Lembo, 677 A.2d 414, 417 (R.I. 1996).

2016See, e.g., South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon, 116 A.3d 204, 210 (R.I. 2015); Lembo v. Lembo, 677 A.2d 414, 417 (R.I. 1996).

2015“When we evaluate questions of law, our review is de novo.” Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 15 A.3d 957, 961 (R.I.2011).

2015“When we evaluate questions of law, our review is de novo.” Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 15 A.3d 957, 961 (R.I. 2011).

2014Upon appeal, the police officer * * * [is] entitled to a trial de novo before a justice of the superior court without a jury.” Notably, this method of appellate review is not “exclusive of any other remedy or procedure otherwise available.” Section 45-20-3. - 13 - also Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062, 1064 (R.I. 1997) (“The review by this [C]ourt of the findings of a hearing committee convened pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights is both limited and highly deferential.”).

2014Moreover, we specified that “[o]ur review is limited, rather, to an examination of the record to determine whether some competent evidence exists to support the committee’s findings.” Id. (citing Dionne, 641 A.2d at 745 , City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I.1991), Lantini v. Daniels, 104 R.I. 572, 574 , 247 A.2d 298, 299 (1968), and Hooper v. Goldstein, 104 R.I. 32, 43 , 241 A.2d 809, 814-15 (1968)); see also Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062, 1064 (R.I.1997) (“The review by this [C]ourt of the findings of a hearing committee convened pursuant to the Law Enforcem

2014Moreover, we specified that “[o]ur review is limited, rather, to an examination of the record to determine whether some competent evidence exists to support the committee’s findings.” Id. (citing Dionne, 641 A.2d at 745 , City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I.1991), Lantini v. Daniels, 104 R.I. 572, 574 , 247 A.2d 298, 299 (1968), and Hooper v. Goldstein, 104 R.I. 32, 43 , 241 A.2d 809, 814-15 (1968)); see also Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062, 1064 (R.I.1997) (“The review by this [C]ourt of the findings of a hearing committee convened pursuant to the Law Enforcem

2014Moreover, we specified that “[o]ur review is limited, rather, to an examination of the record to determine whether some competent evidence exists to support the committee’s findings.” Id. (citing Dionne, 641 A.2d at 745 , City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I.1991), Lantini v. Daniels, 104 R.I. 572, 574 , 247 A.2d 298, 299 (1968), and Hooper v. Goldstein, 104 R.I. 32, 43 , 241 A.2d 809, 814-15 (1968)); see also Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062, 1064 (R.I.1997) (“The review by this [C]ourt of the findings of a hearing committee convened pursuant to the Law Enforcem