(a) Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime, a violation of law,
or a violation of probationary or deferred sentence status and who claims:
(1) That the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the constitution of the United
States or the constitution or laws of this state;
(2) That the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;
(3) That the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise not in accordance
with the sentence authorized by law;
(4) That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard,
that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice;
(5) That his or her sentence has expired, his or her probation, parole, or conditional
release unlawfully revoked, or he or she is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or
other restraint; or
(6) That the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any
ground of alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other
writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy;
may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure
relief.
(b) This remedy is not a substitute for nor does it affect any remedy incident to the
proceedings in the trial court, or of direct review of the sentence or conviction.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it comprehends and takes the place of
all other common law, statutory, or other remedies heretofore available for challenging
the validity of the conviction or sentence. It shall be used exclusively in place
of them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
118
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Because defendant raises his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, however, he must pursue his claim through an application for post-conviction *519 relief pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1. State v. Brouillard, 745 A.”
Page v. State, 995 A.2d 934 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Page alleged ineffective assistance on the part of both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel.”
Mattatall v. State, 947 A.2d 896 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 4× “After this Court’s affirmance of his conviction, applicant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1, alleging over thirty separate grounds for relief, including proseeu-torial misconduct and “[cjonspiracy and [ijneffectiveness.”
Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Larngar filed an application for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Gonder v. State, 935 A.2d 82 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Gonder filed an application for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney.”
Raso v. Wall, 884 A.2d 391 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 3× “See G.L. 1956 §§ 10-9.1-1 through 10-9.1-9. 2 The applicant urged, in the alternative, that the court order specific performance of the sentencing recommendation that the prosecution had made back in 1973.”
Jeremy Motyka v. State of Rhode Island, 172 A.3d 1203 (R.I. 2017).
· cites it 4× “He also avers that the hearing justice erred in dismissing the following claims contained in the application for postconviction relief at issue: (1) actual innocence; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (3) double jeopardy; (4) insufficient jury instructions; (5) ineffective…”
Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Almost thirteen years later, under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1, 2 Rodrigues filed an appli *313 cation for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel and that her plea was neither knowing, voluntary, nor intelligent.”
Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012).
· cites it 4× “On August 4, 2000, Tassone filed an application for postconviction relief under G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-1. In that application, he alleged that his constitutional rights had been adversely impacted by the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and by witness perjury.”
Simpson v. State, 769 A.2d 1257 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “5 Simpson’s Superior Court application for postconviction relief pursuant to § 10-9.1-1 was filed on July 30, 1997. 6 In his application, Simpson contended that his federal Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel had been violated.”
Thornton v. State, 948 A.2d 312 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Thornton filed a pro se application for postconviction relief pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1; in that application, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial error with respect to the waiver of his constitutional rights, and error in his sentencing.”
State v. Dunn, 726 A.2d 1142 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The trial justice in this case in so acting and ruling was clearly wrong.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(4): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a)(1): 12 cases
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a)(3): 2 cases
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a)(4): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a)(5): 2 cases
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(a)(l): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-1(b): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.