Opinion
P1-2011-0654C
02-15-2023
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. LUIS MIGUEL MOLINA
For Plaintiff: John F. Perrotta, Esq. For Defendant: John F. Cicilline, Esq.
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiff: John F. Perrotta, Esq.
For Defendant: John F. Cicilline, Esq.
DECISION
LANPHEAR, J.
This matter is before the Court on Luis Miguel Molina's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Travel
In August 2019, Mr. Molina came before the Court for hearing on an alleged violation of his probation and suspended sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, he was found to be a violator and a portion of his suspended sentence was converted to time to serve. Since then he has filed a variety of post-hearing motions and an appeal to our Supreme Court, which was denied (case number SU-2020-0265 CA). He now petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief.
This Court's docket reflects that an application for a writ of habeas corpus was first filed in September 2021. The matter was heard before two different Superior Court justices, Mr. Molina was brought before the matter was referred to the sentencing justice. Additional memoranda were filed, but the sentencing justice issued the writ on November 16, 2021 commanding that the defendant be brought before the Court. Mr. Molina was brought before the Court in December 2021. After a correction to a clerk's note regarding his hold for want of bail, Mr. Molina was ordered returned to the Adult Correctional Institutions for completion of his sentence. The Court's denial of the writ (or more properly, the refusal of the Court to grant a reduction of sentence) was appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal of December 9, 2021.
This appeal does not appear to have been docketed, as no 2021 case number could be located before the high court.
Undaunted, Mr. Molina filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus before the court on February 14, 2022. Although the docket indicates that the Court acted on the petition promptly, petitioner's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment later in the year, for a hearing in 2023. On January 26, 2023, Mr. Molina came before the Court to press his Motion for Summary Judgment on the petition for issuance of the writ. Though our Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to habeas corpus petitions (Super. R. Civ. P. 81(3)), the Court heard arguments, reviewed written submissions and then denied the summary judgment. Oddly, plaintiff's counsel then insisted that the habeas corpus remain before the Court. The Court, suggesting that the application for writ had already been denied, heard argument and then gave the parties additional time to brief the pending issues. That time having now expired, the application and the writ is before the Court for consideration.
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is, conventionally, to suggest to the Court that a prisoner is inappropriately held, and to bring the prisoner before the Court for determination. As the Supreme Court has instructed:
"The original view of a habeas corpus attack upon detention under a judicial order was a limited one. The relevant inquiry was confined to determining simply whether or not the committing court had been possessed of jurisdiction. But, over the years, the writ of habeas corpus evolved as a remedy available to effect discharge from any confinement contrary to the Constitution or fundamental law, even though imposed pursuant to conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485-86 (1973) (internal citations omitted).
Rhode Island courts have, of course, followed the same reasoning. They have used the writ to determine if persons were improperly determined to be in contempt or improperly restrained by a commitment to probation. Noble v Siwicki, 97 R.I. 288, 197 A.2d 298 (1964). The writ itself challenges the wrongfulness of imprisonment or restraint, and is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Brown v Sharkey, 106 R.I. 714, 263 A.2d 104 (1970). See also habeas corpus, Black's Law Dictionary 837 (4th ed. 1968). Rhode Island has adopted statutes proscribing the methods of issuing habeas writs. Per statute, the court should promptly consider the cause of imprisonment or restraint. Section 10-9-14. It should provide sufficient notice to the detained party and the prosecution. Sections 10-9-15 and 10-9-16. It is not the function of the writ to completely adjudicate, but simply to issue the writ and determine if the restraint is appropriate. Sections 10-9-1 and 10-9-12.
This is precisely what this Court has done. It has repeatedly brought the prisoner to the Court, allowed his attorney to be fully heard, and inquired if the imprisonment was appropriate. Not only that, but on each occasion the Court not only delved into whether the process was appropriate but allowed counsel to argue the merits of the case. The Court has repeatedly reflected on its findings of fact, its determination of the credibility of the witnesses, discussed the evidence presented, applied the burden of proof and, most importantly, listened. The finding of the violation, the procedure, and the sentence itself have been considered by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, State v. Molina, 251 A.3d 485 (R.I. 2021), and frankly, no new arguments are pending before the Court now. It is therefore appropriate to determine the issues which may be pending before the Court forthwith. As the statute states:
"The court shall proceed in a summary way to examine the causes of imprisonment or restraint and to hear the evidence that may be produced by any person interested and authorized to appear, both in
support of the imprisonment or restraint and against it, and thereupon to dispose . . ." Section 10-9-17 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Court previously has denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and it is
ORDERED:
1. The writs of habeas corpus issued for Luis M. Molina are each quashed and dismissed.
2. Mr. Molina's requests for habeas corpus relief are denied in their entirety.