(a) Within twenty (20) days after receiving notice of the docketing of the application,
or within any further time the court may fix, the attorney general shall respond by
answer or by motion which may be supported by affidavits. At any time prior to entry
of judgment the court may grant leave to withdraw the application. The court may make
appropriate orders for amendment of the application or any pleading or motion, for
pleading over, for filing further pleadings or motions, or for extending the time
of the filing of any pleading. In considering the application the court shall take
account of substance regardless of defects of form. If the application is not accompanied
by the record of the proceedings challenged therein, the attorney general shall file
with his or her answer the record or portions thereof that are material to the questions
raised in the application.
(b) When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion,
and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post conviction relief and no
purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties
its intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The applicant
shall be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal. In light of the
reply, or on default thereof, the court may order the application dismissed or grant
leave to file an amended application or direct that the proceedings otherwise continue.
Disposition on the pleadings and record is not proper if there exists a genuine issue
of material fact.
(c) The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of the application
when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
and agreements of fact, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
Notes of Decisions
Pedro Reyes v. State of Rhode Island, 141 A.3d 644 (R.I. 2016).
· cites it 38× “She also notified him, in accordance with § 10-9.1-6, that she was inclined to dismiss his application on the merits unless he came forward with “something of great significance * * * that persuades the [c]ourt that [he] would have gone to trial” on the 1994 charges.”
Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012).
· cites it 15× “While my colleagues find that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted, especially since Tassone was sentenced to life without parole, in fact, § 10-9.1-6 clearly does not require one and permits dismissal of a postconviction-relief application "[w]hen a court is…”
Palmigiano v. State, 387 A.2d 1382 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 7× “Palmigiano alleges that the newly discovered fact of the jurors’ exposure to newspaper accounts of his trial is evidence that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. This claim is clearly one encompassed by the statute.”
State v. Frazar, 776 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 8× “1 The defendant also contends that the summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief was in violation of G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-6(b). He also raises numerous issues relative to the merits of his application for post-conviction relief.”
Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012).
· cites it 3× “1-6(b) provides: “When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post conviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its…”
Sosa v. State, 949 A.2d 1014 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 4× “3 We previously have determined that § 10-9.1-6 does not require an evidentiary hearing, but that an applicant must be provided with an “opportunity to reply to the court’s proposed dismissal.”
Miguel v. State, 774 A.2d 19 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “The hearing justice relied on G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-6(b) as the basis for denying the application.”
Carillo v. Moran, 463 A.2d 178 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The state moved to dismiss Carillo’s application or, in the alternative, requested summary disposition of the matter, pursuant to § 10-9.1-6(b) and (c), as enacted by P.L.”
Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2008); see § 10-9.1-6(b), (c). “If the applicant’s reply reveals that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, then an evidentiary hearing need not be provided and the court can proceed to rule on the application without a hearing.”
State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2 Postconviction Relief Hearing Based on § 10-9.1-6(c), 7 the state on January 4, 2007 moved for summary disposition requesting denial of Laurence’s application for postconviction relief.”
Toole v. State, 713 A.2d 1264 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 4× “We conclude that although the trial justice was not required by the language set forth in G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-6(b) to conduct an evidentiary hearing, he was required to give Toole an opportunity to reply to his proposed dismissal.”
Leonard Jefferson v. State of Rhode Island, 184 A.3d 1094 (R.I. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Additionally, § 10-9.1-6(b) specifically allows for summary dismissal of applications for postconviction relief on the pleadings where there is no basis for relief.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-6(a): 2 cases
Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012).
“While my colleagues find that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted, especially since Tassone was sentenced to life without parole, in fact, § 10-9.1-6 clearly does not require one and permits dismissal of a postconviction-relief application "[w]hen a court is…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-6(b): 20 cases
Pedro Reyes v. State of Rhode Island, 141 A.3d 644 (R.I. 2016).
“She also notified him, in accordance with § 10-9.1-6, that she was inclined to dismiss his application on the merits unless he came forward with “something of great significance * * * that persuades the [c]ourt that [he] would have gone to trial” on the 1994 charges.”
Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012).
“While my colleagues find that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted, especially since Tassone was sentenced to life without parole, in fact, § 10-9.1-6 clearly does not require one and permits dismissal of a postconviction-relief application "[w]hen a court is…”
State v. Frazar, 776 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 2001).
“1 The defendant also contends that the summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief was in violation of G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-6(b). He also raises numerous issues relative to the merits of his application for post-conviction relief.”
Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012).
“1-6(b) provides: “When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post conviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its…”
Sosa v. State, 949 A.2d 1014 (R.I. 2008).
“3 We previously have determined that § 10-9.1-6 does not require an evidentiary hearing, but that an applicant must be provided with an “opportunity to reply to the court’s proposed dismissal.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-6(b)(2009): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-6(c): 12 cases
Pedro Reyes v. State of Rhode Island, 141 A.3d 644 (R.I. 2016).
“She also notified him, in accordance with § 10-9.1-6, that she was inclined to dismiss his application on the merits unless he came forward with “something of great significance * * * that persuades the [c]ourt that [he] would have gone to trial” on the 1994 charges.”
Palmigiano v. State, 387 A.2d 1382 (R.I. 1978).
“Palmigiano alleges that the newly discovered fact of the jurors’ exposure to newspaper accounts of his trial is evidence that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. This claim is clearly one encompassed by the statute.”
Tassone v. State, 42 A.3d 1277 (R.I. 2012).
“While my colleagues find that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted, especially since Tassone was sentenced to life without parole, in fact, § 10-9.1-6 clearly does not require one and permits dismissal of a postconviction-relief application "[w]hen a court is…”
State v. Laurence, 18 A.3d 512 (R.I. 2011).
“2 Postconviction Relief Hearing Based on § 10-9.1-6(c), 7 the state on January 4, 2007 moved for summary disposition requesting denial of Laurence’s application for postconviction relief.”
Carillo v. Moran, 463 A.2d 178 (R.I. 1983).
“The state moved to dismiss Carillo’s application or, in the alternative, requested summary disposition of the matter, pursuant to § 10-9.1-6(b) and (c), as enacted by P.L.”
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.