post-conviction relief hearing in Rhode Island

2010In Bustamante , the Rhode Island Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to counsel "who would blindly follow a defendant's instructions.'" 866 A.2d at 524 (quoting State v. Thornton , 800 A.2d 1016 , 1029 n. 14 (R.I. 2002) (quoting McQueen v. Blackburn , 755 F.2d 1174 , 1178 (5th Cir. 1985), cert . denied , 474 U.S. 852 (1985)).

2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “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.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also

2014We do not agree. 14 The applicant did not *1279 articulate a Brady claim in any cogent manner in his application or at the post-conviction-relief hearing, and the hearing justice did not rule on any such claim. “[A] motion upon which a trial justice has not ruled presents no question for review by this Court.” Bido, 941 A.2d at 829 (quoting State v. Abreu, 899 A.2d 473, 476 (R.I.2006)).

2013At the post-conviction-relief hearing, Jolly bore the burden of proving “that, but for his attorney’s errors, he would not have entered a [nolo contendere] plea, but rather would have proceeded to trial.” Gonder, 985 A.2d at 87.

2012When reviewing the grant or denial of postconviction relief, the hearing justice’s factual findings and credibility determinations will be upheld “absent clear error or a determination that the hearing justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” Lynch v. State, 13 A.3d 603, 605 (R.I.2011) (quoting Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 313 (R.I.2009)); see Rice v. State, 38 A.3d 9 , 17 n. 11 (R.I.2012) (“This Court will not disturb * * * credibility determinations by a post-conviction-relief hearing justice unless the [applicant] ‘demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that the

2012When reviewing the grant or denial of postconviction relief, the hearing justice’s factual findings and credibility determinations will be upheld “absent clear error or a determination that the hearing justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” Lynch v. State, 13 A.3d 603, 605 (R.I.2011) (quoting Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 313 (R.I.2009)); see Rice v. State, 38 A.3d 9 , 17 n. 11 (R.I.2012) (“This Court will not disturb * * * credibility determinations by a post-conviction-relief hearing justice unless the [applicant] ‘demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that the

2012At the same time, we review “questions of fact concerning infringement of constitutional rights, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications, de novo.” Sosa, 949 A.2d at 1016 ; see also Lynch, 13 A.3d at 605 .

2012When reviewing the grant or denial of postconviction relief, the hearing justice’s factual findings and credibility determinations will be upheld “absent clear error or a determination that the hearing justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” Lynch v. State, 13 A.3d 603, 605 (R.I.2011) (quoting Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 313 (R.I.2009)); see Rice v. State, 38 A.3d 9 , 17 n. 11 (R.I.2012) (“This Court will not disturb * * * credibility determinations by a post-conviction-relief hearing justice unless the [applicant] ‘demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that the

2012When reviewing the grant or denial of postconviction relief, the hearing justice’s factual findings and credibility determinations will be upheld “absent clear error or a determination that the hearing justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” Lynch v. State, 13 A.3d 603, 605 (R.I.2011) (quoting Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 313 (R.I.2009)); see Rice v. State, 38 A.3d 9 , 17 n. 11 (R.I.2012) (“This Court will not disturb * * * credibility determinations by a post-conviction-relief hearing justice unless the [applicant] ‘demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that the

2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “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.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also

2005See Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116, 1124 (R.I.2004) (“[T]o the extent that any of the applicant’s arguments suggest that the evidence did not support his conviction, we hold that such claims cannot be litigated for the first time at a post-conviction relief hearing.

2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “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.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also