Commonwealth v. Galvin, 466 Mass. 286

Defendant sold cocaine to an undercover officer on June 3, 2011 and was indicted October 18, 2011 for distribution under c. 94C, § 32A(c) and for being a second or subsequent offender under § 32A(d), carrying a five-year mandatory minimum.
The Crime Bill, enacted August 2, 2012, § 14 reduced the § 32A(d) mandatory minimum from five to three and one-half years, and § 48 allowed parole, work release, and sentence reductions for those already serving under the prior minimum.
Twenty days after enactment, August 22, 2012, defendant was convicted by bench trial on the § 32A(d) charge; Commonwealth sought a five-year minimum based on the pre-amendment statute.
Judge imposed a three-and-a-half-year minimum under § 14; Commonwealth sought correction under Rule 29(a) to match the pre-amendment sentence, which the judge denied.
Commonwealth filed a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3; single justice reserved and reported to full court on the legality of the sentence.
Court held that the Crime Bill's amendments should apply to those serving or subject to serving such sentences, even if offense occurred before the amendments became effective; remanded to deny Commonwealth’s petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle for appeal of an illegal sentence	Commonwealth may appeal illegal sentence under c. 211, § 3.	Statutory routes do not expressly authorize appeal of an illegal sentence; remedy lies in superintendence powers.	c. 211, § 3 proper for Commonwealth review
Applicability of Crime Bill § 32A(d) reductions to pre-amendment offenses	Sentence must reflect pre-amendment § 32A(d) as of offense date.	Legislature intended broad, backward-looking relief; benefits apply to those sentenced after effective date.	Amendments apply to defendant; benefits retroactively extend
Retroactivity and equal protection/due process concerns	Applying amendments retroactively may impair equal protection.	No unconstitutional retroactivity; results consistent with Legislature’s intent.	No equal protection violation; retroactive application permitted
Scope of statutory construction and legislative intent	Read amendments as prospective, no retroactive reach to pre-offense convictions.	Policy aims of Crime Bill justify broad application; strict textual timing not controlling.	Remedy consistent with manifest legislative intent; apply amendments

Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 440 Mass. 147 (2003) (court may correct illegal sentences under superintendence power)
Commonwealth v. Cowan, 422 Mass. 546 (1996) (superintendence powers to correct sentences)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 461 Mass. 256 (2012) (superintendence review of improper sentence)
Commonwealth v. Lowder, 432 Mass. 92 (2000) (superintendence to correct sentencing errors)
Commonwealth v. Tate, 424 Mass. 236 (1997) (equal protection concerns about retroactivity; mere favorable later law not invalidating statute)
Commonwealth v. Purdy, 408 Mass. 681 (1990) (retroactivity considerations in statutory changes)
Commonwealth v. Dotson, 462 Mass. 96 (2012) (statutory amendments and retroactivity; context of intent)
Sullivan v. Brookline, 435 Mass. 353 (2001) (statutory interpretation to effectuate legislative intent)
Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444 (1934) (statutory interpretation principles for implement law’s purpose)
Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350 (2006) (contextual interpretation to effectuate legislation)
Prescott Publ. Co., 463 Mass. 258 (2012) (interpret statutes to avoid absurd results)