Commonwealth v. Figueroa
464 Mass. 365
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant on parole for armed robbery and on probation for rape of a child; parole conditions included no areas with children, disclose relationships with someone with children, GPS monitoring, and daily location calendar.
- On Halloween 2007, parole officer instructed staying home after 6 p.m.; GPS showed defendant in Framingham after 6 p.m.; he claimed a GPS glitch and gave a false explanation.
- Parole officer confronted with GPS data; defendant was detained on a 15‑day parole detainer; parole revoked and probation terminated.
- July 1, 2008, defendant indicted for misleading a parole officer under §13B and for habitual offender under §25; trial by judge after jury waiver.
- Evidence showed a romantic relationship with Yudrey Millares and regular contact with her four children; Halloween night participation and cover‑up actions; letter falsely claiming child care on Halloween.
- Judge convicted on §13B and found him a habitual offender; sentence max under §13B; subsequent concurrent sentencing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a parole officer’s investigation constitute a 'criminal proceeding of any type' under §13B? | Commonwealth contends investigations into parole violations fit §13B’s protection. | Gaps exist between parole investigations and 'criminal proceedings' as defined by §13B. | Yes; investigation qualifies as a 'criminal proceeding' under §13B. |
| What does 'misleads' mean in §13B and how should it be defined? | Commonwealth adopts the federal definition of misleading conduct from §1512(b). | Defendant argues a narrower, non‑federal interpretation should apply. | Adopts federal definition of 'misleading conduct' for §13B. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that the defendant misled the parole officer? | Commonwealth shows intentional concealment of visit to Millares’s apartment and Halloween activities. | Defendant argues lack of successful misleadment absolves him. | Yes; substantial evidence supported a rational finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422 (2011) (amendment expands protection to parolees and related circumstances)
- Hrycenko v. Commonwealth, 459 Mass. 503 (2011) (amendment expanded §13B scope and protections)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (parole revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution but within system)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole release and revocation proceedings as due process context)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 445 Mass. 161 (2005) (parole as punishment and its relation to §13B protections)
- Commonwealth v. Fortuna, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 45 (2011) (definition/scope of 'misleading' under §13B)