Commonwealth v. McConaga
2011 Mass. App. LEXIS 705
Massachusetts Appeals Court
May 13, 2011
Motion to Suppress, Denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal
The trial court’s judgment denying defendant’s motion to dismiss was reversed with directions to allow the motion, and the Commonwealth’s appeal was dismissed.
Facts
McConaga was charged with trafficking drugs and filed a motion to suppress evidence because the search warrant authorizing the search was issued without establishing a sufficient connection between the alleged criminal conduct and the vehicle that was searched. Trial judge allowed the motion because of insufficient nexus and the Commonwealth filed a motion to reconsider arguing that a sufficient nexus existed. The latter motion was denied and Commonwealth appealed. McConaga filed a motion to dismiss this appeal which was denied. Now McConga is appealing the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issue 1: Whether a motion to reconsider, filed sixty-six days following the entry of Superior Court order, is sufficient to bring an appeal from the allowance of the suppression motion?
No. Commonwealth’s motion to reconsider was not filed in a timely manner and as such its motion to suppress was time barred. As a result the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Commonwealth’s appeal. Court relied on Rules 15(a)(2) and 15(b)(1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure and General Laws c.278, § 28E.
Issue 2: Whether a motion to reconsider is adequate to revive appellate rights that have lapsed under rule 15(b)(1)?
No. The “reasonable time” standard established in Commonwealth v. Balboni and in Commonwealth v. Powers does no longer apply. From 2000, Mass.R.Crim.P. 15 and G. L. c. 278, § 28 E has substituted the “reasonable time” standard with a period of ten days. As such Commonwealth’s appeal was not filed in a timely manner.
Prepared by BH.
