Posts tagged "1103315"

Commonwealth v. Cano (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-033-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1672                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  HILDEBRANDO CANO. No. 13-P-1672. Middlesex.     October 8, 2014. – April 3, 2015.   Present:  Green, Rubin, & Agnes, JJ.     Practice, Criminal, Admission to sufficient facts to warrant finding, Plea, New trial, Defendant’s competency, Waiver, Assistance of counsel.  Constitutional Law, Plea, Assistance of counsel.  Due Process of Law, Plea, Assistance of counsel.  Waiver.  Incompetent Person, Plea to criminal charge.  Alien.  Abuse Prevention.  Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.       Complaints received and sworn to in the Lowell Division of the District Court Department on January 8, 1988, June 22, 1992, August 23, 1996, and June 2, 2006.   Motions for a new trial, filed on March 7, 2013, were considered by Neil J. Walker, J.     Thomas Stylianos, Jr., for the defendant. Emily Walsh, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     GREEN, J.  The defendant appeals from orders of the District Court, denying his motions for new trial which sought to vacate guilty pleas[1] entered on various charges.  The defendant contends that his motions raised substantial issues, warranting evidentiary hearings.  Specifically, he claims that his plea counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas, and that counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance in that respect caused him prejudice.  See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).  Separately, he asserts that he lacked the mental competency required to enter each of the pleas knowingly and voluntarily.  We discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in the motion judge’s rejection of the latter claim, but agree that the defendant’s motion directed to his 1997 guilty plea to the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon raised issues sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.  We accordingly vacate the order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on the 1997 guilty pleas only as to the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and remand the matter for further proceedings.  We otherwise affirm that order and the remaining orders. Background.  The defendant’s new trial motions sought to vacate guilty pleas he entered on five charges, on four separate occasions beginning in 1988 and ending in 2006.  On January 8, 1988, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of shoplifting (1988 plea), for which he was ordered to pay a fifty dollar fine.  On […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 3, 2015 at 3:05 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,