Commonwealth v. Resende (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-003-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11997 COMMONWEALTH vs. JAIME RESENDE. Plymouth. September 7, 2016. – January 3, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Armed Home Invasion. Armed Assault with Intent to Rob. Practice, Criminal, Duplicative convictions, Double jeopardy, Verdict, Confrontation of witnesses, Argument by prosecutor. Evidence, Statement of codefendant, Immunized witness, Corroborative evidence. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses, Double jeopardy. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 21, 2007. The cases were tried before Richard J. Chin, J., and a motion for a new trial was heard by him; certain of the cases were retried before Charles J. Hely, J.; and motions to reinstate a conviction and for release from unlawful restraint were heard by Richard J. Chin, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Jonathan Shapiro (Molly Gayle Campbell with him) for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. David Lewis, Anthony Mirenda, & Richard G. Baldwin, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GAZIANO, J. In 2010, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder for his role in the shooting death of Nelson Pina. The jury also convicted him of armed home invasion and armed assault with intent to rob. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the judge should have provided the jury with a felony-murder merger instruction. The trial judge, who heard the motion, determined that a new trial was necessary on the felony-murder conviction, but did not disturb the convictions of armed home invasion and armed assault with intent to rob. At his 2015 retrial, this time on the single charge of felony-murder, a second jury found the defendant not guilty. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the convictions at his first trial of armed home invasion and armed assault with intent to rob. He argues, on double jeopardy grounds, that he cannot be guilty of those charges because the second jury acquitted him of felony-murder, predicated upon the same underlying felonies. He also argues that the felony convictions should not stand because the admission of an incriminating statement from a nontestifying codefendant […]
Commonwealth v. Resende (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-105-16)
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-11981 COMMONWEALTH vs. ADMILSON RESENDE. Plymouth. April 4, 2016. – July 25, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Plea, Conduct of government agents. Due Process of Law, Plea, Disclosure of evidence, Presumption. Practice, Criminal, Plea, New trial, Conduct of government agents, Disclosure of evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof. Evidence, Guilty plea, Certificate of drug analysis, Presumptions, Disclosure of evidence. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 9, 2006. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed on October 2, 2012, and supplemented on March 20, 2014, was heard by Paul A. Chernoff, J., special judicial magistrate, and an order affirming the proposed order of the special judicial magistrate was entered by Frank M. Gaziano, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Laurie Yeshulas, Assistant District Attorney (Lisa J. Jacobs, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. SPINA, J. The present case is the most recent in a series of cases concerning the egregious misconduct of Annie Dookhan, a chemist who was employed in the forensic drug laboratory of the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton drug lab) from 2003 until 2012. On January 23, 2007, the defendant, Admilson Resende, pleaded guilty on indictments charging distribution of a class B controlled substance (cocaine), G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (c) (five counts); violation of the controlled substances laws in proximity to a school or park, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J (three counts); and possession of a class B controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (c) (one count).[1] He completed service of his sentences.[2] On October 2, 2012, the defendant filed in the Superior Court a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), based on Dookhan’s malfeasance. Prior to the issuance of a ruling on the defendant’s motion, this court decided Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (2014), in which we articulated, in reliance on Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278, 290-297 (1st Cir. 2006), a two-prong framework for analyzing a defendant’s motion […]
Commonwealth v. Resende (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-077-16)
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-11849 COMMONWEALTH vs. ADMILSON RESENDE. Plymouth. December 10, 2015. – June 9, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Firearms. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Sentence. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 26, 2011. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Charles J. Hely, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him; and the cases were heard by Frank M. Gaziano, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Carolyn A. Burbine, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BOTSFORD, J. In a jury-waived trial in June, 2014, a Superior Court judge found the defendant, Admilson Resende, guilty of several firearms offenses, each of which had associated with it an armed career criminal sentence enhancement charge under G. L. c. 269, § 10G (§ 10G), the Massachusetts armed career criminal act (Massachusetts ACCA). After a separate jury-waived trial on the enhancement charges, the judge sentenced the defendant under § 10G (c) to a mandatory minimum State prison term of from fifteen years to fifteen years and one day. In his appeal from these convictions, the defendant presents an unanswered question about the proper interpretation of § 10G, which provides sentence enhancements for designated firearms offenses where a defendant previously has been convicted of one or more “violent crimes” or “serious drug offenses,” or a combination of the two. For reasons we shall explain, we interpret § 10G to mean that where the previous convictions of predicate offenses forming the basis of the sentence enhancement charge were all part of a single prosecution, they properly should be treated as a single predicate conviction. In this case, therefore, the defendant’s previous drug offense convictions, which were part of a single prosecution, should have been considered as one previous conviction that would be punishable under § 10G (a) rather than § 10G (c).[1] 1. Background. a. Prior drug convictions. On August 22, 2006, when the defendant was nineteen years old, he was arrested and charged with five counts of distribution of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a). The five distribution counts arose from hand-to-hand […]