Opinion
C. A. PC-2022-6129
06-19-2023
HASIM MUNIR v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
For Plaintiff: Hasim Munir, pro se For Defendant: Marissa D. Pizana, Esq.
For Plaintiff: Hasim Munir, pro se
For Defendant: Marissa D. Pizana, Esq.
DECISION
GIBNEY, P.J.
Petitioner Hasim Munir (Petitioner) has submitted a claim for compensation pursuant to the Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Compensation Statute, G.L. 1956 chapter 33 of title 12. See generally Claim for Wrongful Imprisonment (Pet.). Now before this Court is the State's Motion to Dismiss (Motion), which argues that Petitioner cannot demonstrate that his original accusatory instrument was dismissed on grounds "not inconsistent with innocence" because Petitioner was subsequently reindicted and convicted for the same conduct as that charged in the first indictment. (Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Obj. to Pet. For Compensation (State's Mem.) 2.) The Court's jurisdiction is pursuant to § 12-33-3.
I
Facts and Travel
The State originally indicted Petitioner on a charge of first-degree child molestation in docket P1-2015-3300A, which was dismissed prior to trial without prejudice, and the State then returned a second indictment based on the "same . . . evidence." See Pet. 2; see also P1-2015-3300A (first indictment); P1-2016-2489A (second indictment). Petitioner is currently imprisoned following a judgment of conviction in P1-2016-2489A. (Pet. 2.) He timely appealed his conviction to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. See State v. Munir, 209 A.3d 545, 556 (R.I. 2019). In an opinion upholding Petitioner's conviction, our Supreme Court noted that when police interrogated Petitioner about his alleged sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old girl, "[a]t the start . . ., defendant denied having molested the underage victim. However, at the end of the approximately one and a half hour interrogation, defendant ultimately confessed to having sexually molested the victim[.]" Id. at 548. The Court determined that this statement was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id. at 552-53.
Petitioner has since obtained an order pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 12-1-12.1 sealing all court records pertaining to P1-2015-3300A. (Pet. Ex. H (Order for Expungement or Sealing of Record).)
Petitioner has since filed the instant claim for compensation; an application for post-conviction relief (PCR), which the Superior Court has dismissed with prejudice, see Order, PM-2019-10028 (Nov. 22, 2022); and numerous unsuccessful collateral attacks in federal district court. See Munir v. Rhode Island Superior Court, No. 22-57WES, 2022 WL 670888, at *1 (D.R.I. Mar. 7, 2022); Munir v. Rhode Island Superior Court, No. 22-39MSM, 2022 WL 669699 (D.R.I. Mar. 7, 2022), adopted, 2022 WL 844233 (D.R.I. Mar. 22, 2022); Munir v. Rhode Island Superior Court, No. 21-92WES, 2021 WL 1238100 (D.R.I. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 1925392 (D.R.I. May 13, 2021); Munir v. Rhode Island, No. 18-cv-415-JJM-LDA, ECF No. 15 (D.R.I. Oct. 17, 2018), appeal terminated, No. 18-2090 (1st Cir. Dec. 21, 2018).
II
Standard of Review
Section 12-33-2 establishes the gatekeeping requirements to present an actionable claim for compensation. See § 12-33-2(a). "If the court determines after an examination of the claim that the claimant has not alleged sufficient facts to succeed at trial it shall dismiss the claim, either on its own motion or on the state's motion." See § 12-33-2(c).
Further, "[pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, a hearing justice may 'dispos[e] of a case early in the litigation process when the material facts are not in dispute after the pleadings have been closed and only questions of law remain to be decided.'" Houle v. Liberty Insurance Corporation, 271 A.3d 591, 593 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Premier Home Restoration, LLC v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 245 A.3d 745, 748 (R.I. 2021)). A court considers a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) by utilizing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss test. Nugent v. State Public Defender's Office, 184 A.3d 703, 706 (R.I. 2018). "As such, 'a judgment on the pleadings may be granted only when it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that a party would not be entitled to relief from the defendant under any set of conceivable facts that could be proven in support of its claim.'" Houle, 271 A.3d at 593-94 (quoting Premier Home Restoration, LLC, 245 A.3d at 748) (internal quotations omitted).
III
Analysis
As is relevant here, "the claimant must establish by documentary evidence that . . . [o]n grounds not inconsistent with innocence . . . [t]he judgment of conviction was vacated for reasons other than the ineffective assistance of counsel . . . and . . . [t]he accusatory instrument was dismissed[.]" (Section 12-33-2(a)(2).) This Court has previously explained that this "'eligibility step' of § 12-33-2 is designed to prevent claimants from using the Compensation Statute to collaterally attack a valid, undisturbed prior judgment of conviction." Terzian v. Magaziner, No. PM-2021-07092, 2023 WL 1982669, at *8 (R.I. Super. Feb. 7, 2023). The Court notes that at the time Petitioner filed the instant Claim for Wrongful Imprisonment on October 13, 2022, which was received and filed by the court clerk on October 17, 2022, Petitioner's PCR application was also pending in the Superior Court. (PM-2019-10028.) The Court has since dismissed Petitioner's PCR application with prejudice, and Petitioner's appeal from that decision is pending with the Rhode Island Supreme Court. (SU-2023-0015-MP.) Just as the federal district court will not "step in and interfere with the adjudication of his ongoing state criminal case at the post-conviction phase," the gatekeeping requirements of § 12-33-2 prevent Petitioner from any similar attempt to "end run" his criminal conviction via the Compensation Statute. Munir, 2022 WL 670888, at *2.
More fundamentally, however, "§ 12-33-2 requires pleading and documentary evidence showing 'legal innocence' not inconsistent with 'factual innocence[.]'" Terzian, 2023 WL 1982669, at *4. Dismissal of an indictment without prejudice, allowing the state to reindict the defendant for the same conduct, after which the defendant is convicted, and the conviction is upheld on appeal with specific reference to the defendant's knowing, intelligent, and voluntary confession to the charged conduct is entirely inconsistent with innocence. The requirements of the Compensation Statute "serve to 'separate those who were wrongfully imprisoned from those who have merely avoided criminal liability.'" In re Henry Bozzo, No. PM-2022-3883, at 8 (R.I. Super. June 8, 2023) (quoting Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962, 967 (Ohio 1989)). Here, Petitioner cannot even demonstrate that he avoided criminal liability. It is beyond the realm of reasonable argument to claim that the Legislature intended to commit taxpayer dollars two times over to both incarcerate and compensate an admitted child molester. (Section 12-33-1(a).)
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court grants the State's Motion to Dismiss the Petition. Counsel shall prepare the appropriate order for entry.