Novel Issues And Ineffective Assistance

A recent opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejects an ineffective assistance claim where the law was uncertain.

The applicant, Curley Snell, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court denying his application for postconviction relief.  On appeal, Snell contended that the hearing justice erred by rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Snell argued that his trial counsel was ineffective when he stipulated to two previous domestic assault convictions in the jury’s presence.

The Supreme Court held that Snell’s trial counsel was not ineffective.  The Court stated that it had yet to interpret the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, G.L. 1956 § 12-29-5, to determine whether the prior convictions required therein are deemed elements of the underlying offense or merely sentencing factors.  The Court emphasized that, because this was a novel legal issue, Snell’s trial counsel cannot have been ineffective for failing to raise it.  The Court also held that the trial counsel’s stipulation was not objectively unreasonable, as it may have been trial strategy.  The Court went on to note that, even if Snell were to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective, Snell would be unable to show that the stipulations were prejudicial.

(Mike Frisch)