Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-8 (2026)

Waiver of or failure to assert claims

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All grounds for relief available to an applicant at the time he or she commences a proceeding under this chapter must be raised in his or her original, or a supplemental or amended, application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kyle Campbell v. State of Rhode Island, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012). · cites it 14× “2007), in which we affirmed the summary dismissal of the applicant’s third application for postconviction relief, notwithstanding the absence of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, because "we agree[d] with the trial justice that G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8 precludes consideration of…”

Mattatall v. State, 947 A.2d 896 (R.I. 2008). · cites it 9× “Even if we were persuaded (and we are not) that the "interest of justice” exception referred to in G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-8 required us in this case to address applicant’s arguments with respect to his 1979 Alford plea, we would still conclude that his contentions are meritless.”

Anderson v. State, 45 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2012). · cites it 13× “The state further argued that Anderson failed to show that the medical records in question would have had an effect on the outcome of the trial.”

Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 10× “Moreover, Rhode Island law, as codified in G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8, provides that: “All grounds for relief available to an applicant at the time he or she commences a proceeding under this chapter must be raised in his or her original, or a supplemental or amended, application.”

Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615 (R.I. 2009). · cites it 10× “The statute quoted in the text (G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-8) is entitled "Waiver of or failure to assert claims.”

Pedro Reyes v. State of Rhode Island, 141 A.3d 644 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 6× “3d at 458 (explaining that “appointed counsel may, in an appropriate case, frame the applicant’s claims in such a way as to avoid § 10-9.1-8’s waiver rule”). We note that a tension is - 22 - unavoidable in cases in which the Shatney procedure is invoked.”

Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 8× “On August 21, 2003, the state moved to dismiss Brown’s application pursuant to G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8 7 based on Brown’s alleged failure to raise such arguments in his first application for post-conviction relief years prior.”

Taylor v. Wall, 821 A.2d 685 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 7× “” This argument is barred by the waiver rule set forth in G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8. Section 10-9.1-8 provides in pertinent part: “Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or…”

Ramirez v. State, 933 A.2d 1110 (R.I. 2007). · cites it 11× “In denying Ramirez’s third application for postconviction relief, the trial justice cited G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8, which provides: “All grounds for relief available to an applicant at the time he or she commences a [postconviction review] proceeding * * * must be raised in his or…”

State v. DeCiantis, 813 A.2d 986 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 4× “” 11 G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8. Under § 10-9.1-8: “All grounds for relief available to an applicant [for post-conviction relief] at the time he or she commences a proceeding under this chapter must be raised in his or her original, or a supplemental or amended, application.”

Miguel v. State, 924 A.2d 3 (R.I. 2007). · cites it 6× “” The state moved to dismiss, arguing that successive applications for postconviction relief are precluded by G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-8, unless they fall within the “interest of justice” exception.”

Voravongsa v. Wall, 349 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-8 (“The clerk shall docket the application upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the attorney general.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.