(a) An action to secure post conviction relief under this chapter shall be brought in
the court in which the judgment of conviction was entered.
(b) If an action for post conviction relief is brought in the district court where the
judgment of conviction was entered and the relief is denied, the denial may be appealed
to the superior court within twenty (20) days of the finding.
Notes of Decisions
Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012).
“See § 10-9.1-2(a). Accordingly, it was error for the trial justice to conclude that he was without jurisdiction to hear these allegations.”
Johnson v. Mullen, 390 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Section 10-9.1-2. The Legislature has *706 established an orderly procedure for dealing with postcon-viction applications whereby claims are heard and, if necessary, evidence produced to provide a complete record for review.”
Jorge M. DePina v. State of Rhode Island, 79 A.3d 1284 (R.I. 2013).
“Sections 10-9.1-2; 10-9.1-7. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[plarties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action * * This Court previously has…”
State v. Abbott, 366 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1976).
“Sections 10-9.1-2 and 10-9.1-9. It was our belief in April of 1976 that defendants, after the sentencing justice had restored the sodomy and larceny indictments, pleas, and punishments, should have first sought post conviction relief in the Superior Court and then taken their…”
Town of Barrington v. DiSalvo, 412 A.2d 924 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” Section 10-9.1-2 with pristine clarity stipulates that postconvietion proceedings seeking relief from a judgment entered in the District Court shall be initiated in the Superior Court from Providence County.”
State v. Abbott, 366 A.2d 1135 (R.I. 1976).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§10-9.1-2 and 10-9.1-9. State v. Abbott, 117 R.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-2(a): 1 case
Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012).
“See § 10-9.1-2(a). Accordingly, it was error for the trial justice to conclude that he was without jurisdiction to hear these allegations.”
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.