Commonwealth v. James
477 Mass. 549
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Steven James was convicted in 1995 of first‑degree murder (extreme atrocity/cruelty) for a 1994 killing when he was 17; he received life without parole under the law then in effect.
- This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, which provides plenary review in capital cases.
- After Diatchenko, which held juvenile life‑without‑parole unconstitutional, James was resentenced to life with parole eligibility.
- James filed a Superior Court motion for a new trial; the motion was denied; he sought leave in the county court under the § 33E "gatekeeper" provision to appeal that denial.
- James argued he was not subject to the gatekeeper provision because his resentencing removed the life‑without‑parole sentence; the single justice reported whether a juvenile in his position remains a "capital case" under § 33E.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reserved and reported the threshold procedural question and directed the matter proceed as a gatekeeper application for determination whether his issues are "new and substantial."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile convicted of first‑degree murder who was resentenced (no longer LWOP) is a "capital case" under G. L. c. 278, § 33E for postconviction appeals | Commonwealth: James had been tried and convicted of first‑degree murder and had plenary review previously, so § 33E applies | James: Resentencing after Diatchenko removed LWOP, so he is no longer a "capital" defendant subject to § 33E gatekeeping | Held: § 33E gatekeeper provision applies because James had plenary review and remains convicted of first‑degree murder after that review; he must seek leave from a single justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. James, 427 Mass. 312 (1998) (direct appeal affirming James’s conviction)
- Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655 (2013) (juvenile LWOP unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Gunter, 459 Mass. 480 (2011) (plenary § 33E review encompasses whole case)
- Dickerson v. Attorney Gen., 396 Mass. 740 (1986) (plenary review justifies single‑justice gatekeeping of postconviction appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 410 Mass. 680 (1991) (gatekeeper requirement for capital defendants after plenary review)
- Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 447 Mass. 161 (2006) (if verdict reduced after plenary review, § 33E gatekeeping no longer applies)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 474 Mass. 576 (2016) (noted but left open question whether juveniles are entitled to plenary review under § 33E)