Commonwealth v. Luckern
87 Mass. App. Ct. 269
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Defendant (Jeffrey Luckern) charged as a habitual offender under amended G. L. c. 279, § 25(a) after a 2013 offense; Superior Court dismissed the habitual-offender enhancement and Commonwealth appealed.
- Statute amended in 2012: applies to felons who "has been previously twice convicted and sentenced to state prison or state correctional facility or a federal corrections facility for a term not less than [three] years."
- Defendant has two prior qualifying convictions: 1995 Massachusetts larceny conviction (split sentence: 3–4 years with most suspended) and a 1984 New Hampshire burglary conviction (originally 3.5–7 years, later reconsidered and fully suspended).
- Trial judge relied on prior-version language (which included "committed") and concluded neither prior met the requirement; dismissed habitual-offender charge.
- Appeals Court treats the amended statute as controlling (charged conduct postdates amendment) and addresses whether a suspended sentence of three years or more counts as being "sentenced" for that term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence of ≥3 years that is suspended (in part or wholly) qualifies as being "sentenced... for a term not less than [three] years" under amended G. L. c. 279, § 25(a) | The Commonwealth argued (and sought affirmance) that suspended sentences meeting the stated term qualify as "sentenced" under the amended statute | Luckern argued that a suspended sentence that results in serving less than three years does not satisfy "sentenced... for a term not less than [three] years;" urged lenity and required actual service | The court held that a sentence of not less than three years, even if suspended in part or wholly so that less than three years will be served, satisfies the statute; reversed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Natl. Bank v. Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (court need not decide law parties assume)
- United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229 (framework for judicial discretion in addressing legal questions)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 624 (prior discussion that suspended sentences of ≥3 years would meet the statutory sentence requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Constantino, 443 Mass. 521 (rule of lenity applies if statutory ambiguity exists)
- Lopes v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 170 (appellee may seek affirmance on any ground)
- Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61 (discussing elimination of authority to suspend state prison sentences after truth-in-sentencing)