Commonwealth v. Richardson, 469 Mass. 248

Defendant Richardson was convicted of armed assault with intent to murder and unlawful possession of a firearm in connection with a Brockton nightclub shooting (March 4, 2007).
Two sentencing enhancements applied: § 10(d) for prior unlawful firearm possession convictions and § 10G(a) for prior violent crime conviction, leading to multiple enhancements for the same underlying offense.
The judge imposed concurrent sentences on the underlying conviction and the two enhancement counts; the Appellate Division later remanded for resentencing under a single enhancement.
Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court addressed whether multiple sentencing enhancements may be imposed for a single offense and, if so, how to structure the sentence.
The Court analyzed legislative intent and the rule of lenity to determine whether cumulative enhancements are permissible when the statutes do not contain a clear statement.
The Court ultimately held that, absent explicit legislative intent, a defendant may be sentenced under only one enhancement for the same underlying crime, and remanded for correction to reflect a single enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May multiple sentencing enhancements apply to one underlying offense?	Commonwealth argues cumulative enhancements are allowed.	Richardson argues only one enhancement should apply absent clear legislative intent.	Only one enhancement may apply; cumulative enhancements are not permitted without explicit legislative intent.
Was the evidence sufficient to identify Richardson as the shooter?	Commonwealth asserts sufficient identifications at trial.	Richardson argues identifications were insufficient.	Evidence was sufficient to identify Richardson as the shooter.
Did the trial judge abuse discretion by not ordering a postverdict juror inquiry?	State sought no voir dire; judge acted within discretion.	Defense urged voir dire of jurors due to potential bias connected to prosecutor.	Judge did not abuse discretion; no cogent showing of juror bias required further inquiry.

Bynum v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 705 (1999) (statutory sentencing enhancements are not independent crimes but punishments for underlying offense)
Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 413 Mass. 224 (1992) (legislative power to define crimes and punish punishments includes cumulative penalties)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983) (double jeopardy does not bar cumulative punishments when statutes authorize it)
Commonwealth v. Constantino, 443 Mass. 521 (2005) (lenity governs sentencing ambiguities in favor of defendant)
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) (statutory interpretation clarifies congressional intent on enhancements)
Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (1980) (ambiguity in multiple enhancements requires lenity to resolve)
Rivas, 466 Mass. 184 (2013) (nolle prosequi decisions before sentencing affect which enhancement survives on remand)