Commonwealth v. Wallace (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-098-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 15-P-1262 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. LARON WALLACE. No. 15-P-1262. Hampden. April 13, 2017. – July 28, 2017. Present: Kafker, C.J., Grainger, & Massing, JJ.[1] Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Plea, Conduct of government agents, Sentence. Due Process of Law, Plea, Sentence. Practice, Criminal, Plea, New trial, Conduct of government agents, Sentence, Affidavit. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 20, 2011. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty was heard by Tina S. Page, J. Sara A. Laroche for the defendant. Benjamin Shorey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. KAFKER, C.J. The defendant, Laron Wallace, appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a Class B substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A(c). He argues that the motion judge abused her discretion in denying the motion because of the Commonwealth’s misconduct in a prior case of his involving the chemist Sonja Farak, which came to light after the guilty plea was entered in this case. Although Farak was not the chemist in this case, the defendant contends that her misconduct in the prior case casts doubt upon the justice of this plea because he considered the concurrent sentences he received in the two cases to be interrelated. Essentially he contends that because his motion for a new trial was allowed and his sentence reduced in the other case involving Farak, the same should occur in this case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Background. The following facts are undisputed. On March 2, 2011, the defendant was arrested by Springfield police executing a search warrant at an apartment located within 100 feet of a public park. The defendant was observed with a bag containing thirty-seven rocks of a substance later determined to be crack cocaine, packaged in smaller individual bags, at his feet. A search of the defendant’s person revealed $ 378 in cash and two cellular telephones. Police also found two digital scales in the apartment. The defendant was indicted in Superior Court, docket no. 2011-00300 (the 2011 case) on two counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute a Class B substance, subsequent offense, G. L. c. 94C, § 34A(d); and (2) a drug violation in a […]