Commonwealth v. Boria
951 N.E.2d 10
Mass.2011Background
- Boria was convicted on June 27, 2006, of distributing cocaine (second offense) under G. L. c. 94C, § 32A, and received a five-year mandatory term.
- At trial, a drug certificate identifying cocaine was admitted over defense objection after the substance was purchased from the defendant by an undercover officer.
- Appeals Court appeal was filed August 27, 2007; sole issue was whether § 32A(d) mandated the five-year minimum.
- Before oral argument, Melendez-Diaz I was granted certiorari to address admissibility of drug certificates under the confrontation clause; appellate counsel did not raise the issue.
- Melendez-Diaz I decision was later found not retroactive to final convictions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Melendez-Diaz II), so admission remained valid under prior law.
- The defendant’s motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and other relief, was denied; the denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| retroactivity of Melendez-Diaz to collateral review | Boria | Boria | Melendez-Diaz not retroactive to final convictions |
| ineffective assistance for not raising admissibility issue on direct appeal | Boria's counsel was ineffective | Boria | Counsel's performance not measurably below standard; futile under Verde |
| trial admission of drug certificate under prior law | Boria | Boria | Admissible under Verde; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 (2005) (drug certificates admissible under business records doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel in the appellate context)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010) (futility of appealing certain issues at request of appellate strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Stote, 456 Mass. 213 (2010) (review of appellate strategy and grounds for relief)