Commonwealth v. Grundman
90 Mass. App. Ct. 403
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Michael Grundman pleaded guilty to five counts of rape of a child; agreed sentence: 2 years in a house of correction and 10 years probation concurrent.
- At sentencing the judge and clerk read and pronounced most probation conditions, but did not orally state the GPS-monitoring condition mandated by G. L. c. 265, § 47; the written probation form and docket entry did include GPS monitoring, and the defendant signed the written conditions acknowledging receipt and understanding.
- Defendant later moved to correct a clerical error to remove the GPS condition, arguing it was never orally imposed and would impede his prospective commercial diver employment; the motion was denied and the judge ordered an on-the-record correction/resentencing to include GPS monitoring.
- Defendant filed motions for reconsideration and a postconviction motion; the judge found the omission was inadvertent, that GPS monitoring is mandated by statute, and that the defendant had actual notice via the written probation order he signed.
- On appeal defendant argued lack of authority to add GPS after sentencing, double jeopardy/finality concerns (Selavka), and lack of actual notice; the Appeals Court affirmed denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Grundman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS monitoring could be imposed though not orally pronounced at sentencing | Written probation form and docket show condition; defendant had actual notice so condition valid | Oral omission means GPS was never imposed; adding it later is impermissible | GPS condition valid because defendant signed written conditions and sentence stated probation was "subject to the terms and conditions of the probation department" |
| Whether belated imposition violates double jeopardy/finality (Selavka issue) | Correction under rule 29/resentencing was timely and did not violate finality because defendant had notice | Adding GPS after sentence finalizes additional punishment in violation of Selavka and double jeopardy | No double jeopardy violation; this case differs from Selavka because defendant had contemporaneous written notice and acknowledged it |
| Whether judge had authority to correct sentence after sentencing | Judge has authority to correct illegal or inadvertent sentencing errors and to resentence | Authority cannot be used to impose a new punitive condition after finality without notice | Court affirmed judge’s authority here given notice and absence of material conflict between oral sentence and docket/written order |
| Whether defendant received actual notice of the GPS condition | The oral sentence made probation "subject to" probation department terms; written form expressly listed GPS and was signed | Defense counsel and defendant were unaware GPS would be required; oral omission deprived defendant of actual notice | Defendant had actual notice via written signed probation conditions and did not object timely; thus no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Selavka, 469 Mass. 502 (recognizes time limit to correct illegal sentence; belated imposition of GPS can violate finality and double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676 (oral pronouncement controls but written notice and prior discussion can cure omission; no material conflict when defendant had notice)
- Commonwealth v. Guzman, 469 Mass. 492 (statutory context re: § 47: sentencing judge has no discretion to decline GPS for enumerated offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559 (GPS monitoring characterized as punitive in effect)