Commonwealth v. Garvey, 477 Mass. 59

James Garvey was indicted in Superior Court on multiple drug charges; indictments included habitual offender enhancements under G. L. c. 279, § 25(a).
The prosecutor presented evidence of prior convictions: four convictions from a single 2002 indictment (kidnapping, receiving stolen property, and two firearm offenses, all sentenced to at least three years) and separate 2002 convictions for distribution and conspiracy; the grand jury received no evidence about the dates or whether the four convictions arose from one incident.
Garvey moved to dismiss the habitual-offender portions of the indictments, arguing the grand jury heard no evidence that the two qualifying prior convictions arose from separate criminal episodes.
A Superior Court judge dismissed the habitual-offender portions; the Commonwealth appealed and the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC was asked to (1) interpret whether § 25(a) requires prior convictions to arise from separate incidents and (2) decide whether the grand jury received sufficient evidence to find probable cause on the habitual-offender element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G. L. c. 279, § 25(a) requires that the two qualifying prior convictions arise from separate criminal episodes	§ 25(a) plain text requires only two prior convictions with qualifying sentences; no express separate-episode requirement	"Habitual" implies repeated conduct on separate occasions; statutory history and prior case law show separate incidents required	Court held § 25(a) requires prior convictions to stem from separate criminal incidents
Whether the grand jury received sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the prior convictions came from separate incidents	At grand jury stage, presenting convictions alone is sufficient for habitual enhancement; no need to present facts showing distinct episodes	Grand jury heard no facts about timing or distinctness; therefore could not find probable cause for separate-episode element	Court held the Commonwealth failed to present evidence to the grand jury establishing the required separate-episode element, so dismissal of habitual portions was proper

Commonwealth v. Richardson, 175 Mass. 202 (discusses "two previous distinct convictions" and legislative purpose of habitual statutes)
Commonwealth v. Luckern, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 269 (treats qualifying prior convictions and scope of § 25(a) post-amendment)
Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445 (discusses grand jury sufficiency principles)
Commonwealth v. Rex, 469 Mass. 36 (permitted inquiry where grand jury received no evidence as to an essential element)
Commonwealth v. Resende, 474 Mass. 455 (applies rule of lenity where statutory ambiguity affects sentencing)