Commonwealth v. Hill, 950 N.E.2d 458

Defendant was convicted on March 9, 1998, after a jury trial, of armed home invasion, robbery, two rapes, two counts of assault and battery, and indecent assault and battery.
Sentences on that day: home invasion 20–25 years; each rape 19–20 years (concurrent with home invasion); indecent assault 4–5 years (concurrent); unarmed robbery 20–25 years (concurrent); two assault and battery convictions placed on file.
On May 6, 1999, the Appellate Division amended the sentence, ordering the rapes to run consecutively to the home invasion sentence, effectively increasing total incarceration.
During 1998, the Legislature amended G. L. c. 265, § 18C, adding a mandatory 20-year sentence for armed home invasion when committed with specified weapons; the amendment later repealed in 2004.
The defendant argued under Rule 30(a) that the Appellate Division could be corrected to reflect current law and mitigate punishment; he relied on a general rule permitting retroactive statutory changes benefiting defendants.
The Superior Court judge denied the Rule 30(a) motion, and the defendant appealed challenging whether the Appellate Division could grant relief and whether the 1998 amendment should apply retroactively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 30(a) may challenge an Appellate Division sentence	Commonwealth argues final Appellate sentence is not reviewable	Vaughn rule allows retroactive mitigations to pending cases; 30(a) appropriate	Rule 30(a) may challenge final Appellate Division sentence
Whether the Appellate Division had authority under c. 278, § 28B to grant relief	Division can amend only dispositions that could have been imposed at the time	Division may reconfigure sentences beyond initial imposition under §28B	Appellate Division lacked authority to grant relief beyond what could have been imposed at the time
Whether the 1998 § 18C amendment applies to cases pending at adoption	Amendment is substantive and retroactive as to pending cases	Amendment is not retroactive; applies to dispositions/penalties moving forward	Amendment applies as written to dispositions under review; retroactivity not extended

Commonwealth v. Callahan, 419 Mass. 306 (1995) (Rule 30(a) challenges to final sentences permitted)
Commonwealth v. Christian, 429 Mass. 1022 (1999) (Rule 30(a) purpose is collateral legality, not direct appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 329 Mass. 333 (1952) (general rule about benefiting from statutory changes during pendency)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 450 Mass. 55 (2007) (context on consecutive vs concurrent sentences and double jeopardy)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 431 Mass. 772 (2000) (interpretation of 1998 amendment applying as written)
Hicks v. Commonwealth, 345 Mass. 89 (1962) (Appellate Division may impose longer sentence on appeal without double jeopardy)