Commonwealth v. Denehy
466 Mass. 723
| Mass. | 2014Background
- On August 20–21, 2008 Edward J. Denehy was charged (arraigned Aug. 21, 2008) with assault and battery on a police officer, disorderly conduct, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon arising from an altercation during which an officer's glasses were broken.
- Repeated continuances, court congestion, and witness unavailability delayed trial; the case was dismissed without prejudice by the trial judge on May 5, 2010 after a Commonwealth witness failed to appear, and a new complaint was filed and the defendant re-arraigned Aug. 12, 2010.
- The defendant filed a Mass. R. Crim. P. 36(b) speedy-trial motion on Nov. 17, 2010; the docket records that the motion was withdrawn the next day and the matter was continued at defense counsel’s request; trial occurred May 9–10, 2011.
- Jury convicted Denehy of disorderly conduct and assault by means of a dangerous weapon, acquitted on assault and battery on a police officer; judge imposed $100 fine, probation, and $264 restitution to Officer Morrow for replacement glasses.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Rule 36 speedy-trial rights were violated (14 days beyond rule 36 limit), (2) trial counsel’s failure to preserve the Rule 36 claim constituted ineffective assistance, and (3) the restitution order did not implicate Apprendi; but the restitution award’s evidentiary support was questionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Denehy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was denied a speedy trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 | Rule 36 delays were excusable/excludable (court congestion, periods with no charges pending after nolle prosequi-style gap, defendant acquiesced to many continuances) | More than 12 months elapsed from original arraignment to trial; exclusions do not cover judicial dismissal-to-rearraignment gap; Rule 36 violated | Speedy-trial right under Rule 36 violated — 14 unjustified days counted against Commonwealth; convictions reversed |
| Whether defendant’s Rule 36 motion was preserved or withdrawn and effect of withdrawal | Docket shows motion withdrawn; issue waived on appeal | Withdrawal was unintended; record should be corrected to show motion denied | Motion deemed withdrawn on record, but counsel’s failure to preserve the meritorious claim constituted ineffective assistance; court reviews merits |
| Whether counsel’s failure to press Rule 36 claim = ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s tactical choices | Counsel unreasonably abandoned a meritorious, dispositive Rule 36 claim and failed to correct the docket or renew claim | Counsel’s performance was manifestly unreasonable and prejudicial under Saferian; ineffective assistance established |
| Whether restitution order violated Apprendi or lacked nexus to convictions | Restitution judge-made and does not alter statutory sentencing range; nexus exists because damage occurred during the charged episode | Apprendi requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for facts that increase punishment; restitution lacks sufficient causal connection if acquittal on officer-assault undermines nexus | Apprendi does not apply to judicially determined restitution absent statutory sentencing parameters; nexus satisfied here but evidentiary support for amount was weak |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule that facts increasing prescribed sentence range must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (extends Apprendi principle to facts that increase mandatory minimums)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (statutorily based fines requiring jury factfinding where amount tied to specific factual duration)
- Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 436 Mass. 829 (restitution must bear causal connection to offense; judge may order restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 (Commonwealth must prove restitution amount and causal connection by preponderance; defendant entitled to hearing and cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 411 Mass. 503 (Rule 36 burden-shifting and exclusions framework)
- Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 285 (docket and clerk’s minutes are prima facie evidence; rule 36 procedural principles)