Criminal Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief

We start with the trial transcript, the exhibits, and the motion practice to look for legal errors, constitutional violations, and issues that meet the standard for plain error review.

An issue preserved at trial gets a more favorable standard of review than one raised for the first time on appeal. Federal courts review unpreserved errors only for plain error, and Rhode Island’s raise-or-waive rule usually bars them entirely. We map the record against the available arguments before deciding which to pursue.

Appellate courts are persuaded by the quality of the argument on the page. We write briefs that address the standard of review directly, engage the government’s position honestly, and advance the strongest available argument.

When the appellate record isn’t enough, motions for new trial, Rule 35 sentence reductions, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel provide an alternative path. We assess which vehicle fits the facts and pursue it in the right court.

When a federal constitutional violation affected a conviction, federal habeas review may be available. A state prisoner who has exhausted state remedies may petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a federal prisoner may move to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Both are narrow and procedurally demanding, so we assess viability honestly before recommending this path.

It depends on the record. Direct appeals have strict, short deadlines. A defendant generally has 20 days from entry of judgment to appeal a Rhode Island Superior Court conviction (R.I. Sup. Ct. R. Art. I, Rule 4(b)) and only 5 days to appeal a Rhode Island District Court conviction to the Superior Court (R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-22-1). The deadline is 30 days in Massachusetts (Mass. R. App. P. 4(b)) and 14 days in federal criminal cases (Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)). Post-conviction options can have longer windows, but some are time-limited too. The sooner you call, the more options are available.

Not every conviction has a viable appellate issue, and we won’t tell you one does if it doesn’t. The most common grounds are legal errors at trial, such as improper admission of evidence, incorrect jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, or constitutional violations that affected the outcome.

A direct appeal challenges the conviction based on what happened at trial and is limited to the existing record. Post-conviction relief can reach matters outside the trial record, such as new evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims that could have been raised earlier may be barred, so choosing the right path matters. The two paths aren’t mutually exclusive, and in some cases both are worth pursuing at the same time.

It’s often advisable, particularly when one of the grounds for appeal is ineffective assistance of trial counsel. This claim is difficult to make if the same attorney is still representing you. A fresh set of eyes on the trial record also helps. We take on appellate and post-conviction cases where we weren’t the original trial counsel.

It depends on the nature of the error. A successful appeal can result in a new trial, a reduced sentence, a vacated conviction, or (in some rare cases) outright dismissal. Appellate courts don’t typically acquit. Instead, they send the case back to the trial court with instructions. What happens next depends on what those instructions say and what the prosecution decides to do.

Appellate work can demand significant research and writing. It takes time to review a trial record carefully and produce a brief worth filing. We’ll give you an honest assessment of the record, what we find, and what representation would involve before any work begins. The first conversation is free.