Commonwealth v. Parrillo
468 Mass. 318
Mass.2014Background
- Parrillo was convicted in 2008 of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen, plus related assault and lewdness charges; sentenced to terms in the house of correction, probation with special conditions, and community parole supervision for life (CPSL).
- He moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) (2010) to vacate the CPSL portion, arguing CPSL was improperly imposed given precedent limiting CPSL for first-time offenders.
- The motion judge denied relief without a hearing, noting the judge had exercised sentencing discretion considering crimes, criminal history, and age.
- This Court consolidated the appeal with related CPSL constitutional challenges and, relying on its decision in Commonwealth v. Cole, held the statutory CPSL provision unconstitutionally delegates judicial sentencing power to the parole board.
- Because CPSL is unconstitutional and not severable from the CPSL scheme, the Court vacated Parrillo’s CPSL sentence and remanded for resentencing; some counts already served cannot be increased on resentencing due to double jeopardy constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of CPSL scheme delegation | CPSL (G. L. c.127, §133D(c)) unlawfully delegates judicial sentencing to executive parole board | Parrillo argued CPSL sentence is unconstitutional and must be vacated | Court: CPSL delegation violates separation of powers; CPSL scheme unconstitutional (per Cole) |
| Proper vehicle to challenge CPSL | Rule 30(a) motion is appropriate | Parrillo used Rule 30(a) to challenge sentence | Court: Rule 30(a) is proper mechanism (citing Azar) |
| Whether CPSL was improperly imposed under §45 (first-time/offender status) | Parrillo: CPSL was imposed contrary to Pagan/Renderos, which limit CPSL on first-time offenders | Commonwealth defended sentencing discretion and reliance on multiple possible statutory bases | Court: No need to decide; CPSL unconstitutional in any form, so sentence vacated |
| Scope of resentencing after vacating CPSL | Parrillo sought vacatur of CPSL only | Commonwealth sought resentencing on integrated sentence package | Court: Resentencing of integrated package appropriate; judge may not increase punishment already served; may resentence remaining suspended count consistent with double jeopardy principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 445 Mass. 161 (court limited imposition of CPSL on first-time offenders)
- Commonwealth v. Renderos, 440 Mass. 422 (CPSL and integrated sentencing; judge must be able to restructure sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Azar, 444 Mass. 72 (Rule 30(a) is proper vehicle to challenge CPSL)
- Commonwealth v. Talbot, 444 Mass. 586 (CPSL may be part of an integrated sentencing package requiring resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cumming, 466 Mass. 467 (resentencing limits to avoid increasing punishment already served; double jeopardy constraints)
- Commonwealth v. McGuinness, 421 Mass. 472 (sentence premised on judge's legal misunderstanding is illegal)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (due process/sixth amendment principles regarding facts that increase mandatory sentences)