Commonwealth v. Dykens
45 N.E.3d 580
Mass.2016Background
- In February 2005 police found signs of attempts to enter the Crams’ home (ladder propped, torn window screen, smashed sliding glass door) and a rock nearby; Dykens was arrested after being found hiding and struggled with officers.
- A grand jury returned 17 indictments; three charged attempted unarmed burglary (each alleging a different overt act: placing a ladder, removing an outer screen, smashing a sliding door) and one charged possession of a burglarious implement (the rock).
- Dykens pleaded guilty to the three attempts and other offenses in October 2005 and was sentenced; years later he moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) to vacate two attempted-burglary convictions as duplicative (double jeopardy) and to vacate the burglarious-implement conviction as the indictment failed to state a crime.
- The trial judge denied the Rule 30 motion; Dykens appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed (on its own motion transferred).
- The SJC considered (1) whether a defendant who pleaded guilty can bring a Rule 30 double jeopardy challenge to multiple attempt convictions, (2) whether multiple attempts at different access points to the same dwelling may be separately charged under G. L. c. 274, § 6, and (3) whether a natural object (rock) can be a “tool or implement” under G. L. c. 266, § 49.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dykens) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty pleas bar a Rule 30(a) double-jeopardy challenge | Guilty plea waived the right to contest multiple convictions — or alternatively, Rule 30(a) unavailable | Even after guilty plea, a facial double-jeopardy claim may be raised under Rule 30(a) | Court: A facial duplicative challenge to convictions based on guilty pleas may be raised under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) when the record suffices to decide the issue |
| Whether multiple attempted unarmed burglary convictions for efforts at different entry points are duplicative | Multiple acts toward same dwelling on same night should be treated as a single continuous course of conduct, so multiple attempts are duplicative | Each discrete overt act (ladder, screen removal, smashing door) can constitute a separate attempt under the attempt statute | Court: Multiple convictions permissible when separate overt acts each come near completion of the substantive offense and are not "bound up with and necessary to" one another; here convictions upheld |
| Whether possession of a natural object (rock) is a burglarious tool/implement under G. L. c. 266, § 49 | Rock is not a “tool or implement” as statute contemplates man-made instruments; indictment failed to allege a crime | Commonwealth argued rock could be used/altered and thus fall within § 49 | Court: "Tool"/"implement" means man-made instruments adapted/designed for breaking/forcing; a rock is not such — indictment defective and conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Negron, 462 Mass. 102 (double-jeopardy collateral attack on guilty plea may proceed when duplicative on the face of the record)
- Commonwealth v. Rollins, 470 Mass. 66 (double jeopardy and unit-of-prosecution principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408 (definition of attempt; overt acts that come near completion)
- Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267 (historic attempt doctrine distinguishing preparation from attempt)
- Commonwealth v. Bolden, 470 Mass. 274 (unit of prosecution for aggravated burglary; continuous-offense analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Suero, 465 Mass. 215 (when one act is bound up with and necessary to another, convictions may be duplicative)
- Commonwealth v. Howze, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 147 (Appeals Court decision on continuous stream of conduct; considered but distinguished)