Posts tagged "1017513"

Commonwealth v. Brown (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-175-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11437     COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MICHAEL R. BROWN.     September 25, 2013.     Controlled Substances.  Doctor, Controlled substances.  Constitutional Law, Double jeopardy, Appeal, Ex post facto law, Equal protection of laws.  Due Process of Law, Appeal.  Practice, Criminal, Double jeopardy, Appeal, Assistance of counsel.  Words, “Dispense,” “Distribute.”       The defendant, Michael R. Brown, was convicted on indictments charging illegally prescribing controlled substances, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, §§ 32A (a) and 32B (a); submitting false medical claims, in violation of G. L. c. 118E, § 40 (2); and larceny of an amount in excess of $ 250, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 30 (1).  We affirmed the convictions.  See Commonwealth v. Brown, 456 Mass. 708 (2010) (Brown I).  After we denied his subsequent petition for rehearing, Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006).  The petition was denied without prejudice on the basis that Brown had failed to exhaust his State court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).  See Brown vs. Ricci, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 11-11154 (D. Mass. Jan. 10, 2012).  Brown thereafter filed a motion for release from unlawful restraint pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), in the Superior Court, which was denied without a hearing.  Brown appealed, and we transferred his appeal to this court on our own motion.     Brown raises several issues in this appeal, all of a constitutional nature and all stemming from the manner in which we decided the defendant’s appeal in Brown I.  That appeal involved two principal issues:  (1) whether an audio-video recording “of the defendant’s conversation in the home of a cooperating witness was properly admitted in evidence . . . where it was the product of a Federal investigation in which Massachusetts law enforcement personnel participated”; and (2) whether a physician “dispenses” rather than “distributes” a controlled substance pursuant to G. L. c. 94C, §§ 32A (a) and 32B (a), when the substance “is delivered pursuant to what purports to be a prescription to a person who does not ‘lawfully’ possess it.”  Brown I, supra at 709-710.  Brown’s current appeal involves only the “dispense-distribute” issue.   In Brown I, we engaged in a detailed analysis of G. L. c. 94C, the Controlled Substances Act (Act), […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,