Commonwealth v. Gibson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-101-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11990 COMMONWEALTH vs. DONALD GIBSON. Hampden. March 8, 2016. – July 13, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Probation, Revocation of probation, Assistance of counsel. Due Process of Law, Probation revocation, Assistance of counsel. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 22, 2006. A hearing on an order to show cause why the defendant should not be deemed to have forfeited his right to counsel at a probation revocation proceeding was had before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a proceeding for revocation of probation was heard by Richard J. Carey, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Glynis Mac Veety for the defendant. Bethany C. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. The principal issue in this appeal is whether a Superior Court judge properly ordered the forfeiture of the defendant’s right to counsel in a probation revocation hearing. The judge, faced with a defendant who admittedly engaged in a pattern of quarrelsome, confrontational, hostile, and threatening conduct toward a succession of nine different court-appointed attorneys over the course of the trial and posttrial proceedings, ordered forfeiture on those grounds. Subsequent to the forfeiture order, the defendant appeared pro se at the probation revocation hearing. A different judge found the defendant in violation of probation and sentenced him to State prison for a term of not less than seven years and not more than eight years, from and after the sentence he was then serving. The defendant appealed, claiming error in the forfeiture order and the probation revocation hearing. The Appeals Court affirmed, Commonwealth v. Gibson, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 829, 835 (2015), ruling that the judge had provided the defendant a full and fair opportunity to be heard on forfeiture and that the forfeiture order had been warranted based on the defendant’s pattern of threats to counsel. The Appeals Court also rejected the defendant’s claims related to the probation revocation hearing. We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review to consider whether the forfeiture order, based on the defendant’s pattern of hostile and threatening conduct toward counsel, warrants forfeiture under the guidelines we […]
Commonwealth v. Gibson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-103-15)
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-1076 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. DONALD GIBSON. No. 13-P-1076. Hampden. February 18, 2015. – August 10, 2015. Present: Green, Grainger, & Massing, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Probation, Revocation of probation, Assistance of counsel. Due Process of Law, Probation revocation, Assistance of counsel. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 22, 2006. A hearing on an order to show cause why the defendant should not be deemed to have forfeited his right to counsel at a probation revocation proceeding was had before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a proceeding for revocation of probation was heard by Richard J. Carey, J. Glynis Mac Veety for the defendant. Bethany C. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth, submitted a brief. GREEN, J. After a hearing at which the defendant proceeded without counsel, a judge of the Superior Court found that the defendant had violated conditions of his probation, and entered an order revoking his probation and imposing a sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the judge’s ruling before the revocation hearing that he had forfeited his right to counsel.[1] We discern no error in the ruling, and discern no merit in the defendant’s other claims of error in the revocation proceeding itself. We accordingly affirm the order of revocation. Background. On August 8, 2008, the defendant was convicted by a jury on two charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen. He was sentenced on count one to not less than eight years and not more than ten years in State prison. On count two he was sentenced to probation for fifteen years to run concurrently with the sentence on count one, with the condition, among others, that he have no contact with the victim (the defendant’s daughter) or her mother without their express authorization.[2] On September 14, 2011, the probation department filed a notice of surrender alleging that the defendant, while still incarcerated, had sent letters to the victim. Following a hearing on April 16, 2013, at which the defendant proceeded without counsel, a Superior Court judge found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his probation, revoked his probation and sentenced him to not less than seven years and not more than eight years from and after the sentence […]