Commonwealth v. Cumming, 466 Mass. 467

In 2002 Richard Gumming was convicted on ten indictments for child-sex offenses and sentenced to concurrent terms (four counts 6–10 years, two counts 4–5 years, four counts 6–10 years) with an illegal condition of community parole supervision for life (CPSL) imposed.
He did not appeal the original sentence; a 2002 Rule 29(a) motion was denied for lack of supporting affidavit.
In 2010 Gumming moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) to vacate CPSL following Commonwealth v. Pagan; the judge allowed the motion and scheduled resentencing.
At resentencing (Oct. 22, 2010) the judge vacated the original lawful incarceration terms nunc pro tunc and restructured the package: kept concurrent 6–10 and 4–5 year terms for most counts but converted two previously concurrent 6–10 year terms into ten years of probation to run after release.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Appeals Court affirmed. Gumming had been released July 2011 and began probation. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further review to resolve double jeopardy challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gumming)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether judge exceeded Rule 30(a) authority by restructuring final, lawful sentences rather than only vacating illegal CPSL	Rule 30(a) only authorized vacating CPSL; lawful portions were final and resentencing violated double jeopardy	Because Gumming moved to vacate CPSL, entire interdependent sentencing package could be opened and restructured	Court held judge could restructure interdependent sentencing scheme under Rule 30(a); no double jeopardy because defendant voluntarily sought correction and sentences were an integrated package
Whether the restructuring increased aggregate punishment in violation of double jeopardy and, if so, appropriate remedy	Restructuring (replacing CPSL with probation) exposed him to greater incarceration if probation revoked, amounting to increased aggregate punishment	Probation is not necessarily harsher than CPSL; restructuring was permissible to effectuate original intent	Court held restructuring potentially increased aggregate punishment; remedy: cap maximum incarceration for probation revocation to the time between resentencing (Oct. 22, 2010) and the remaining maximum confinement under the original concurrent sentences, to avoid double jeopardy

Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 458 Mass. 11 (discusses finality and double jeopardy limits on resentencing)
Aldoupolis v. Commonwealth, 386 Mass. 260 (explains double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments and finality)
Commonwealth v. Shabazz, 387 Mass. 291 (rejects increasing aggregate punishment by adjusting unchallenged final sentences)
Commonwealth v. Renderos, 440 Mass. 422 (sentence components can form an inseparable integrated package)
Commonwealth v. Talbot, 444 Mass. 586 (addresses interdependence of sentencing elements)
Commonwealth v. Pagan, 445 Mass. 161 (CPSL provision held unconstitutionally vague as applied to certain offenders)
Commonwealth v. Leggett, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 730 (defendant who seeks correction exposes interdependent sentence to restructuring)
Commonwealth v. Holmgren, 421 Mass. 224 (probation revocation returns the original sentence to full effect)