Commonwealth v. Rezendes, 37 N.E.3d 672

Defendant Dominic Rezendes was convicted of multiple firearm and assault charges; a judge found him an "armed career criminal" under G. L. c. 269, § 10G based on two adult convictions and one juvenile adjudication for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a pen).
The juvenile adjudication arose from an incident at a detention facility in which Rezendes was seen gouging a victim with a pen.
The Massachusetts ACCA enhances firearm sentences for persons with prior "violent crimes," where the definitional statute (G. L. c. 140, § 121) treats juvenile acts as qualifying only if they "involve the use or possession of a deadly weapon."
The Commonwealth argued "deadly weapon" in § 121 is synonymous with the common-law term "dangerous weapon;" Rezendes argued a pen is not a "deadly weapon" and thus the juvenile adjudication cannot be a predicate.
The Appeals Court analyzed statutory text, ordinary meaning, legislative intent, federal analogues, and Supreme Court categorical-approach precedent (Taylor, Shepard, Johnson) and held that for § 10G purposes a "deadly weapon" must be inherently deadly; a pen is not inherently deadly.
Judgment vacated as to the § 10G(c) three-predicate sentence; remanded for resentencing under § 10G(b) on two predicates; other convictions affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "deadly weapon" in G. L. c. 140, § 121 equals common-law "dangerous weapon"	The Legislature used "deadly weapon" with the same expansive meaning as "dangerous weapon."	"Deadly weapon" is narrower than "dangerous weapon;" the statute requires a truly deadly instrument.	"Deadly weapon" is distinct and narrower than "dangerous weapon."
Whether inquiry may examine how a noninherently-deadly object was used to qualify a juvenile adjudication	The Commonwealth: admissible — courts can consider whether an object was used in a deadly manner.	Rezendes: such fact-finding is improper; statute contemplates inherently deadly weapons.	Courts may not engage in extended factual inquiries into how an object was used; categorically the weapon must be inherently deadly to qualify.
Whether a pen can be a "deadly weapon" for § 121 purposes	Pen can be deadly as used; juvenile adjudication should qualify.	A pen is not inherently deadly and thus cannot qualify as a deadly weapon under § 121.	A pen is not an inherently deadly weapon and therefore does not qualify as a predicate for § 10G enhancement.
Whether defendant's juvenile adjudication may serve as one of three predicates for mandatory § 10G(c) sentence	N/A (Commonwealth sought to count it)	Rezendes argued it cannot be counted because it did not involve an inherently deadly weapon.	Juvenile adjudication does not qualify; resentencing required to count only two predicate offenses under § 10G(b).

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes categorical approach to predicate-offense analysis)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits permissible review of records to identify statutory basis of prior conviction)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidates vague residual clause; critiques fact-intensive inquiry into prior offenses)
Commonwealth v. Claudio, 418 Mass. 103 (characterizes deadly-weapon felonies as those "inherently dangerous to human life")
Commonwealth v. Colon, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (applies categorical/modified categorical approach under Massachusetts ACCA)
Commonwealth v. Kerns, 449 Mass. 641 (discusses statutory language and interpretation relevant to weapon-related statutes)