Jeremy M. Motyka v. State of Rhode Island , 91 A.3d 351 ( 2014 )

Supreme Court
No. 2013-74-Appeal.
Jeremy M. Motyka :
v. :
State of Rhode Island. :
ORDER
This case was assigned for oral argument on the Supreme Court’s May 6, 2014
Show Cause Calendar, the parties having been directed to appear and show cause why the
issues raised by the appellant, Jeremy M. Motyka (applicant), in this appeal from the
denial of his application for post-conviction relief should not summarily be decided. The
applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after
a conviction for a murder committed in a manner involving torture and aggravated
battery. See State v. Motyka, 893 A.2d 267 (R.I. 2006). The state has conceded that the
trial justice failed to articulate any findings or conclusions concerning the grounds raised
in the application, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Shatney v. State, 755
A.2d 130 (R.I. 2000).
On April 18, 2014, the appellee, State of Rhode Island, filed with this Court, a
concession of error, conceding that the Superior Court hearing justice did not provide
applicant with an opportunity “to be heard on whether any arguable basis exists to
proceed with the application” for post-conviction relief after the filing of a two-page no-
merit memorandum by appointed counsel in accordance with Shatney, 755 A.2d at 136.
-1-
Although applicant was provided with counsel, the record also reflects that he
engaged in vigorous advocacy on his own behalf, such that the trial justice was
confronted with “overlap and duplicity” among the various filings by the applicant. This
Court accepts the state’s concession of error with respect to the manner in which this case
was decided in the Superior Court, and we vacate the judgment denying postconviction
relief issued in the Superior Court. We remand this case for a new hearing with present
counsel as his attorney. We note, however, that applicant may not have it two ways—he
is entitled to the able assistance of a court-appointed lawyer or he can elect to represent
himself as a pro se litigant, but not both.
Accordingly, the judgment denying postconviction relief entered in the Superior
Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
Chief Justice Suttell did not participate.
Entered as an Order of this Court, this 24th day of April, 2014.
By Order,
___________/s/_________________
Clerk
-2-
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: Jeremy M. Motyka v. State of Rhode Island.
CASE NO: No. 2013-74-Appeal.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: April 24, 2014
JUSTICES: Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
SOURCE OF APPEAL: Newport County Superior Court
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
Associate Justice Melanie Wilk Thunberg
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Applicant: Christopher S. Gontarz, Esq.
For State: Jeanine P. McConaghy
Department of Attorney General