State v. Lopez

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Lopez

779 A.2d 647, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 200, 2001 WL 1126647

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedSeptember 18, 2001

DocketNo. 01-206-M.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 779 A.2d 647 (State v. Lopez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lopez, 779 A.2d 647, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 200, 2001 WL 1126647 (R.I. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The state in this criminal case seeks a writ of certiorari to review a trial justice’s decision granting defendant’s motion for new trial. The trial justice, in ruling on the motion, conditionally disregarded the state’s claim that the new trial motion had not been filed within ten days after the jury’s guilty verdict as required by Super. R.Crim. P. 38, and that consequently the court did not have jurisdiction to act on it. State v. Heath, 665 A.2d 1336 (R.I.1995); State v. Rodriguez, 742 A.2d 728 (R.I.1999). The defendant has not responded to the petition, leaving the state’s assertions herein uncontradicted.

In light of the above-cited opinions and on the basis of the materials supplied to us by the state in support of the petition, including the new-trial hearing transcript, we conclude that the trial justice in this case was clearly without jurisdiction to decide this motion for new trial and that summary action on this petition is therefore warranted.

Accordingly, because issuance of the writ in these circumstances is unnecessary, we grant the petition for certiorari. The decision and judgment of the Superior Court granting a new trial is quashed, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court with this Order duly endorsed thereon.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The state in this criminal case seeks a writ of certiorari to review a trial justice’s decision granting defendant’s motion for new trial. The trial justice, in ruling on the motion, conditionally disregarded the state’s claim that the new trial motion had not been filed within ten days after the jury’s guilty verdict as required by Super. R.Crim. P. 38, and that consequently the court did not have jurisdiction to act on it. State v. Heath, 665 A.2d 1336 (R.I.1995); State v. Rodriguez, 742 A.2d 728 (R.I.1999). The defendant has not responded to the petition, leaving the state’s assertions herein uncontradicted.

In light of the above-cited opinions and on the basis of the materials supplied to us by the state in support of the petition, including the new-trial hearing transcript, we conclude that the trial justice in this case was clearly without jurisdiction to decide this motion for new trial and that summary action on this petition is therefore warranted.

Accordingly, because issuance of the writ in these circumstances is unnecessary, we grant the petition for certiorari. The decision and judgment of the Superior Court granting a new trial is quashed, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court with this Order duly endorsed thereon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 A.2d 647, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 200, 2001 WL 1126647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lopez-ri-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack