Posts tagged "1000214"

Commonwealth v. Denehy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-002-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11296   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  EDWARD J. DENEHY. Hampden.     September 3, 2013.  ‑  January 8, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Practice, Criminal, Recording of proceedings, Waiver, Assistance of counsel, Speedy trial, Restitution.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Speedy trial.  Restitution.       Complaint received and sworn to in the Springfield Division of the District Court Department on August 21, 2008.   A pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by Jacques C. Leroy, J., and the case was tried before Nancy Dusek-Gomez, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Merritt Schnipper for the defendant. Deborah D. Ahlstrom, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & Randall E. Ravitz, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     CORDY, J.  The defendant, Edward J. Denehy, was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 53, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B, on May 10, 2011, nearly three years after his initial arraignment on August 21, 2008.  On appeal, he makes two primary arguments.  First, he contends that he was not afforded a speedy trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 (b), as amended, 422 Mass. 1503 (1996), and therefore he is entitled to dismissal of the charges against him with prejudice.  Second, he avers that the trial judge’s order of restitution to compensate a police officer whose glasses were damaged during his interaction with the defendant was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), and its progeny, which require certain factual findings relevant to sentencing to be made by a jury.  Further, he contends that, where he was acquitted of assault and battery on a police officer, the restitution award did not have a sufficient nexus to the crimes for which he was convicted.  We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review to clarify ambiguities regarding the Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 calculus and restitution orders. We conclude that the defendant was denied a speedy trial, and any failures by his trial counsel to perfect that claim constituted the ineffective assistance of counsel.  Although we resolve this matter on those grounds, we further conclude that the trial judge’s determination of a restitution award did […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 9, 2014 at 12:32 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,