Commonwealth v. Augustine, 470 Mass. 837

Defendant Augustine was indicted for murder and moved to suppress cell-site location information; the Superior Court granted suppression.
The Commonwealth obtained leave to appeal under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(a)(2); the SJC held a warrant was required and remanded for probable cause showing (Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014)).
CPCS initially appointed counsel (Steven Sack) who handled suppression and the single-justice stage; CPCS then appointed Ruth Greenberg for the full-court appeal but she withdrew.
ACLU attorneys Segal and Rossman entered to represent Augustine before the full court, expressly on a pro bono basis; they did not charge or bind Augustine to pay fees.
Augustine moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(d) for reimbursement of appellate attorney fees ($12,000 requested for Segal’s work). The Commonwealth opposed; CPCS filed an amicus letter.
The SJC denied the fee request, holding Rule 15(d) does not authorize payment to an indigent defendant for privately arranged pro bono representation when the defendant incurred no legal obligation or expense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 15(d) requires the Commonwealth to pay appellate fees for private counsel who represented an indigent defendant but provided services pro bono	Commonwealth: Rule 15(d) should not be required to reimburse fees not incurred	Defendant: Even if pro bono, award should be paid to equalize resources and recognize counsel’s time	Held: No — Rule 15(d) reimburses costs actually incurred or legally obliged; no reimbursement when defendant incurred no fee or obligation
Whether Rule 15(d) applies when CPCS had appointed/assigned counsel and defendant later replaced them with private counsel	Commonwealth: Rule 15(d) is for defendants who must retain counsel (no CPCS representation)	Defendant: Defendant may discharge appointed counsel and retain private counsel and seek reimbursement	Held: Rule 15(d) does not apply to indigent defendants furnished CPCS counsel unless defendant actually incurs fees or legal obligation for private counsel
Whether DA’s consideration of fee liability creates an equal protection or discriminatory impact against indigent defendants	Defendant/CPCS: Rule 15(d) structure incentivizes DA to appeal more often against indigent defendants	Commonwealth: No discriminatory intent shown in the record	Held: Court acknowledged concern but found insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or pattern in this case; left broader structural issues for another day

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (S.J.C. 2014) (held warrant required for cell-site location information)
Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 432 Mass. 613 (S.J.C. 2000) (origin and purposes of Rule 15(d); equalizing resources)
Commonwealth v. Phinney, 448 Mass. 621 (S.J.C. 2007) (procedures and purposes for appellate fee awards)
Commonwealth v. Sparks, 431 Mass. 299 (S.J.C. 2000) (Rule 15(d) reimbursement not required for private counsel arranged by court-appointed counsel without CPCS authorization)
Commonwealth v. Rosario, 458 Mass. 1003 (S.J.C. 2010) (awarding fees where counsel was privately retained)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 430 Mass. 244 (S.J.C. 1999) (fee award context where counsel was privately retained)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 423 Mass. 1010 (S.J.C. 1996) (clarifying scope of fee awards under Rule 15(d))