Charles Pona v. State of Rhode Island

Syllabus

The petitioner, Charles Pona, sought review of Superior Court orders summarily dismissing his applications for postconviction relief. Pona argued that the postconviction-relief statute codifies the right of applicants to counsel and that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard before his applications were summarily dismissed. The state responded that Pona entered his appearance pro se, that his claims lacked substantive merit, and that counsel was available to Pona only if he requested an attorney, which he neglected to do. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court erred by failing to hold a hearing in which the hearing justice could determine that Pona had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of the Superior Court.