Posts tagged "Lydon"

Commonwealth v. Lydon (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-089-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   SJC-12289   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DAVID LYDON.     May 26, 2017.     Imprisonment, Credit for time served.  Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Judicial discretion.     The defendant, David Lydon, appeals from an order denying his motion for credit for time being served in a house of correction for one set of offenses, while he was awaiting trial and sentencing in the Superior Court on a second, unrelated set of offenses.  The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the motion in a unpublished memorandum and order issued pursuant to its rule 1:28, see Commonwealth v. Lydon, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2017), and this court granted further appellate review.  Although the defendant is not entitled as of right to the credit he seeks, we recognize that in appropriate circumstances a judge has discretion to impose a concurrent State prison sentence nunc pro tunc to the commencement of a house of correction sentence then being served.  Because the judge did not consider whether to exercise his discretion in that regard, we vacate the order, and remand for further consideration.   Discussion.  While the defendant was on probation for various drug offenses (Roxbury charges), he was arrested and arraigned in the District Court for three new robbery offenses, for which he later was indicted and arraigned in the Superior Court (Dorchester charges).  About five weeks after his arrest on the Dorchester charges, the defendant stipulated to violation of the conditions of his probation, was sentenced on the Roxbury charges, and began serving a six-month committed sentence in the house of correction.  One hundred and thirty-two days later (while he was serving the Roxbury sentence), he pleaded guilty to the Dorchester charges, and was given a committed sentence to State prison “forthwith and notwithstanding” the Roxbury sentence.  The sentencing judge credited against the Dorchester sentence the thirty-six days the defendant had been held before sentencing on the Roxbury charges, but denied the defendant’s motion for additional credit for the 132 days he already had served on the existing Roxbury sentence.   The defendant does not argue that he was entitled as of right to a 132-day jail credit on the Dorchester sentence.  Instead, his claim is that a judge has discretion to authorize such credit in these circumstances for two reasons:  first, under Commonwealth v. Ridge, 470 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2015), a judge has discretion […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 26, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Lydon v. Coulter (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-068-14)

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‑1272                                       Appeals Court     JUNE M. LYDON, trustee,[1]  vs.  THOMAS COULTER. No. 13‑P‑1272.      June 17, 2014.       Judgment.  Injunction.  Contempt.  Notice.  Practice, Civil, Attorney’s fees, Contempt, Judgment, Injunctive relief.         This action arises from a zoning dispute between abutting landowners in the town of Milton (town).  A judge in the Land Court, as part of a contempt action, awarded the plaintiff partial attorney’s fees.  The plaintiff appeals, claiming that the fees and costs awarded were erroneously low.  The defendant cross-appeals, claiming that fees and costs should not have been awarded at all and that there was no contempt as the underlying Land Court judgment did not constitute an injunction.  We affirm.     Background.  We need not tarry on the extended litigation between the parties over the right of the defendant to operate a landscaping business next to a vacant residential home owned by the plaintiff.[2]  On August 1, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.  On May 3, 2012, the Land Court judge issued a decision and judgment finding largely in favor of the plaintiff.  In pertinent part, the judgment commanded that “[a] landscaping business may not be operated on [Coulter’s property].”   On August 16, 2012, the plaintiff brought a complaint for civil contempt in the Land Court to enforce Coulter’s compliance with the May 3 judgment.  On December 18 of the same year, an evidentiary hearing was held on the complaint for contempt. Before the hearing, the judge took a view of the property in question.  On July 3, 2013, judgment entered, finding that Coulter was, indeed, in contempt.  As part of the contempt judgment, the judge awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs.   In determining the amount of the fees, the judge grouped the plaintiff’s actions to enforce the original judgment into four categories: (1) litigating Coulter’s appeal of the May 3 judgment; (2) pursuing administrative remedies with the town; (3) attempting to prevent, and then appealing, an amendment to the zoning by-law; and (4) prosecuting the contempt action in the Land Court.  The judge declined to award the plaintiff any fees incurred relative to the first three items.  As to the fourth, the judge concluded that the plaintiff could recover.  In the end, the judge allowed fees in the amount of $ 9,575 out of the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 17, 2014 at 7:55 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,