Posts tagged "Doucette"

M.M. v. Doucette (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-101-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-1474                                       Appeals Court   M.M.  vs.  CHARLES DOUCETTE.     No. 16-P-1474.   Essex.     May 8, 2017. – August 4, 2017.   Present:  Meade, Hanlon, & Sacks, JJ.     Abuse Prevention.  Protective Order.  Due Process of Law, Abuse prevention, Notice.  Notice.       Complaint for protection from abuse filed in the Peabody Division of the District Court Department on February 15, 2011.   The case was heard by Matthew J. Nestor, J.     Charles Doucette, pro se.     HANLON, J.  The defendant, an inmate at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord, appeals, pro se, from an order of the District Court, issuing a permanent abuse prevention order against him, pursuant to G. L. c. 209A (restraining order).  He argues that he was denied an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether the permanent order was wrongfully issued.  We agree and remand the matter for a new hearing. Background.  The relevant facts are fairly straightforward. On February 15, 2011, a judge of the Peabody District Court issued a restraining order after an ex parte hearing “at which plaintiff was present and defendant was not present, to expire on [February 28, 2011].”[1]  A hearing after notice was scheduled for February 28, 2011. The District Court docket sheet indicates that, on February 16, 2011, the day after the ex parte hearing, a court officer of the Salem District Court served the defendant in hand with the ex parte restraining order, which included the scheduled date for the hearing after notice.[2]  On February 28, 2011, as scheduled, a hearing after notice was held and the judge extended the restraining order for one year until February 27, 2012.  The docket indicates that the plaintiff was present and the defendant was not present.  On March 2, 2011, the docket indicates that a copy of the extended order was left at the defendant’s “last and usual abode.”  The docket does not indicate where that abode was located, or whether it was the address that the defendant had been ordered to stay away from. At the next scheduled hearing, a year later, on February 27, 2012, the restraining order was made permanent without modification.  According to the docket sheet, “the plaintiff was present and the defendant was not present.”  The defendant’s absence from that hearing was explained by a further note:  “defendant incarcerated.”[3]  The defendant […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 4, 2017 at 7:45 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Doucette v. Massachusetts Parole Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-137-14)

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   13-P-149                                        Appeals Court   CHARLES DOUCETTE  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD. No. 13-P-149. Essex.     April 4, 2014. – October 29, 2014.   Present:  Berry, Katzmann, & Sullivan, JJ.   Parole.  Administrative Law, Adjudicatory proceeding, Decision, Evidence, Failure to raise issue before agency, Hearing, Regulations.  Constitutional Law, Delay in rendering decision, Impartial tribunal, Parole.  Due Process of Law, Administrative hearing, Delay in rendering decision, Hearing, Parole.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari, Failure to raise issue, Hearsay, Motion to dismiss, Relief in the nature of certiorari, Review of administrative action, Waiver.  Waiver.  Evidence, Absence of witness, Administrative proceeding, Hearsay, Police report.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 18, 2012.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Richard E. Welch, III, J.     Eitan Goldberg for the plaintiff. Christopher Hurld, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.     SULLIVAN, J.  Charles Doucette appeals from the dismissal of his complaint challenging the decision of the Massachusetts Parole Board (board) revoking his parole.  Doucette proceeds on two fronts — a civil rights claim asserting that the board violated due process in the conduct of the revocation proceedings, and a claim in the nature of certiorari seeking review of the merits of the board’s decision.  See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; G. L. c. 249, § 4.  We conclude that the procedural irregularities in the revocation proceedings do not rise to the level of a due process violation, and that the revocation decision was not arbitrary or capricious.  Accordingly, we affirm. Background.  On February 20, 2007, Doucette was released on parole from a life sentence for murder in the second degree.  According to the conditions of parole, Doucette was required, among other things, to conduct himself responsibly and obey all laws, attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings three times per week, notify and seek permission from his parole officer regarding any change in residence or living situation, avoid persons known to have violated the law, comply with all special instructions given by his parole officer, and pay a monthly supervision fee. Four years later, Doucette was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, intimidation of a witness, and threats, charges which arose from an incident with his then girlfriend.  A parole violation detainer issued, listing violations based on this incident, as well as other violations previously noted by his parole […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 29, 2014 at 11:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,