Commonwealth vs. Dennis C. Reddy, June 15, 2010
Motion to dismiss a Habitual Offender Indictment
Facts and Procedural History
The defendant was charged in District Court with complaints of breaking and entering in the nighttime, malicious destruction of property, conspiracy, and possession of a burglarious instrument. He offered to plead guilty to those charges. The prosecutor would not agree to recommend anything less than the maximum period of incarceration that the District Court judge could impose on each offense. The defendant, after entering his pleas, requested that he be sentenced to fifteen months on each offense, such sentences to run concurrently with each other and with a sentence he was likely to receive in connection with a parole violation then pending against him.
After the judge explained that she could not impose a sentence that would run concurrently with a sentence that had not yet been imposed the defendant (after consultation with counsel) chose to withdraw his pleas of guilty rather than agree to have the matter continued for sentencing after the resolution of the parole violation. The judge advised the defendant that the case would consequently be set down for trial, but she was persuaded (by the defendant) to continue the case for another change of plea with the explicit directive that "it's going to be within thirty days." There was no change of plea during the several subsequent court dates that followed. Six months later a grand jury returned indictments charging the defendant with breaking and entering in the nighttime, larceny, possession of burglarious instruments and being a habitual offender.
A Superior Court judge subsequently allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss the habitual offender indictment on grounds of fundamental fairness and due process. The Appeals Court reversed the dismissal, concluding from the same record that there had been no prosecutorial promise to leave the case open indefinitely beyond the change of plea date set by the court after the defendant offered and then chose to withdraw his pleas, nor any promise to refrain from seeking future indictments. Commonwealth v. Reddy, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 307 (2009). The SJC agreed and reversed the order dismissing the habitual offender indictment.
Discussion
The Court reasoned that the prosecutor's willingness to allow the defendant to resolve the matter quickly by pleading guilty in the District Court contained no guarantee or assurance that there would be no indictment in the future if the pleas were withdrawn, and that the defendant withdrew his pleas for strategic reasons in an attempt better to position himself for either a more favorable resolution of the parole violation or a more favorable sentencing outcome in the District Court, or both. The SJC went on to say that the fact that this strategy failed in its execution is not something for which the Commonwealth was responsible. The SJC agreed that there was no promise, explicit or implied, with regard to what would happen in that event on which the defendant reasonably could have relied.
- Prepared by AEK
