Commonwealth v. Boyd, 48 N.E.3d 39

In 2008 Boyd fired a sawed-off shotgun during a confrontation with police; he was convicted of unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun (G. L. c. 269, § 10(c)) and several related offenses.
After a bifurcated proceeding establishing prior convictions, Boyd was convicted on two sentencing enhancements for the shotgun offense: (1) as a second-time offender (§ 10(d)) and (2) under the Armed Career Criminal (ACC) statute (§ 10G(c)).
At initial sentencing the judge imposed an ACC-based term (15–17 years) and did not impose a separate sentence on the second-offender enhancement.
The ACC conviction was reversed on appeal; on remand the Commonwealth sought to enter a nolle prosequi of the second-offender enhancement and the judge resentenced Boyd on the underlying § 10(c) offense to 12–15 years.
Boyd challenged the resentencing, arguing the Commonwealth could not nol pros an enhancement after sentencing and that the resulting sentence violated statutory intent and double jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case and resolved the legal issues.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Boyd's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing judge's prior choice of one enhancement effectively dismisses other enhancement counts so the Commonwealth cannot nol pros them at resentencing	Commonwealth need not nol pros because it retained prosecutorial prerogative before resentencing; it attempted to nol pros the second-offender enhancement	Nol pros after sentencing is time-barred and deprives Boyd of protections; allowed nol pros at resentencing would increase punishment and raise double jeopardy concerns	The judge's original sentencing under the ACC effectively dismissed the second-offender enhancement; after reversal that enhancement was no longer available for nol pros; the resentencing on the underlying offense was proper
Whether resentencing under the underlying § 10(c) statute (which permits a greater maximum than the second-offender enhancement) produced an excessive or impermissible sentence given statutory structure	The statutory text plainly authorizes the broad range of penalties for § 10(c); resentencing within that range is lawful	The statutory scheme is inconsistent and should be read in favor of lesser punishment for first-time offenders; sentence above 7 years is inappropriate	The statute is unambiguous; § 10(c) authorizes imprisonment up to life with an 18-month minimum; the sentence (12–15 years) was permissible and is affirmed

Commonwealth v. Richardson, 469 Mass. 248 (2014) (where multiple enhancement convictions exist, the Commonwealth may nol pros prior to sentencing; absent that, the sentencing judge selects which enhancement survives)
Commonwealth v. Rivas, 466 Mass. 184 (2013) (sentencing judge must craft individualized sentence when Commonwealth has not nol pros before sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Massod, 350 Mass. 745 (1966) (prosecutor may enter a nolle prosequi as to an indictment or count prior to sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659 (1998) (court cannot review an otherwise lawful sentence beyond its statutory bounds)
Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797 (1984) (principles limiting appellate review of lawful sentences)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 447 Mass. 1018 (2006) (sentencing enhancement statutes do not create independent crimes)