ineffective assistance claim in Rhode Island

2007In an ineffective assistance inquiry, “the benchmark issue is whether ‘counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’” Ferrell, 889 A.2d at 191 (quoting Young, 877 A.2d at 629 ).

2006This Court is only permitted to decide whether at trial, Petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in the constitutional sense. 5 "In Rhode Island, the benchmark issue is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. . . . [Our high court] previously [has] indicated that an ineffective assistance claim will not be deemed viable unless the attorney's representation [was] so lacking that the [hearing] had become a farce and a mockery of justice. . . ." Ferrell v. Wall

2008Importantly, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Cronic , found that "specific errors and omissions" can be the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. *Page 17 466 U.S. 648 , 657 n. 20 (1984).

2007In an ineffective assistance inquiry, “the benchmark issue is whether ‘counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’” Ferrell, 889 A.2d at 191 (quoting Young, 877 A.2d at 629 ).

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 .

2007The second, prejudice portion of the ineffective assistance test "`requires a showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. `" Id., quoting Strickland, supra at 694.

2005Parkhurst cites Hughes v. State, 609 A.2d 943 (R.I. 1992), for the proposition that the merit of an ineffective assistance claim may only be determined by way of a hearing.

2005We previously have indicated that an ineffective assistance claim “will not be deemed viable ‘unless the attorney’s representation [was] so lacking that the [hearing] ha[d] become a farce and a mockery of justice * * *.’ ” Hampton, 786 A.2d at 381 (quoting State v. Dunn, 726 A.2d 1142 , 1146 n. 4 (R.I.1999)).

2005He cites State v. Fontaine, 559 A.2d 622 (R.I. 1989), for the proposition that the credibility of newly discovered evidence may only be determined after an evidentiary hearing.

2005We previously have indicated that an ineffective assistance claim “will not be deemed viable ‘unless the attorney’s representation [was] so lacking that the [hearing] ha[d] become a farce and a mockery of justice * * *.’ ” Hampton, 786 A.2d at 381 (quoting State v. Dunn, 726 A.2d 1142 , 1146 n. 4 (R.I.1999)).

1993Since we have already determined that applicant has not met his burden of showing that his counsel was deficient in his representation under the first part of the Strickland test, “we need not address the prejudice component of the Strickland test.” Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d at 183 . “[TJhere is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim * * * to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ).

1993Since we have already determined that applicant has not met his burden of showing that his counsel was deficient in his representation under the first part of the Strickland test, “we need not address the prejudice component of the Strickland test.” Brown v. Moran, 534 A.2d at 183 . “[TJhere is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim * * * to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ).

1993We shall, however, address applicant’s inconsistent and misplaced reliance on Olson and his attempt to refute New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) in his prejudice argument.

1993We shall, however, address applicant’s inconsistent and misplaced reliance on Olson and his attempt to refute New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) in his prejudice argument.