Commonwealth v. Roberts
472 Mass. 355
| Mass. | 2015Background
- In 2005 Roberts pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses (including forcible rape of children) and was sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 9–13 years imprisonment plus probation, sex-offender registration, and treatment.
- Neither Roberts’s plea counsel nor the plea judge informed him that his convictions could serve as predicates for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person under G. L. c. 123A (potentially from one day to life).
- Roberts later learned of the civil-commitment possibility and moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; his motion argued (among other things) ineffective assistance and lack of Rule 12 advisement. Multiple judges handled filings and hearings; plea counsel had performance problems and was publicly reprimanded.
- A Superior Court judge granted Roberts’s second postsentence motion to withdraw his pleas, relying in part on an analogy to Padilla v. Kentucky (failure to advise about deportation). The Commonwealth appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court took the case.
- The SJC concluded Padilla was inapplicable to c.123A civil commitment, but held that Rule 12’s omission can support withdrawal if the defendant shows a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty had he been properly advised; remanded for further findings on prejudice and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Roberts's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea judge's failure to inform about possible c.123A commitment rendered the plea constitutionally involuntary | Omission did not amount to constitutional due process error; Padilla inapposite | Judge's failure to advise deprived Roberts of knowledge critical to voluntariness | Not constitutional error per se; but omission can support plea withdrawal under Rule 30 if defendant shows reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty |
| Whether Padilla requires the judge to advise about civil commitment like deportation | Padilla limited to near-certain, virtually mandatory deportation consequences; not applicable here | Roberts relied on analogy to Padilla to show constitutional infirmity | Padilla is inapt; civil commitment is discretionary, requires additional findings, and is a collateral consequence rather than virtually mandatory |
| Whether the motion judge abused discretion in considering Roberts’s second (postsentence) motion | Claimed waiver of new arguments because not raised earlier | Roberts argued appellate counsel refused to raise c.123A issue and counsel problems made waiver review appropriate | No abuse of discretion; under the circumstances the judge permissibly considered the new arguments |
| Proper standard for relief when Rule 12 advisement is omitted | Relief should require showing of prejudice/materiality | Roberts: omission was material given magnitude of liberty at stake | Court adopts standard: defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the omission, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on trial; remand for factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen clients about near-certain deportation consequences of a guilty plea)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (guilty plea must be voluntary and made with sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances)
- Morrow v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 601 (1973) (civil confinement is a contingent consequence; historically not required to be explained for voluntariness)
- Berrios v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 701 (2006) (postsentence motion to withdraw plea treated as motion for new trial; plea voluntariness standard)
- DeMarco v. Commonwealth, 387 Mass. 481 (1982) (postsentence plea withdrawal requires credible reason outweighing prejudice to Commonwealth)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 467 Mass. 336 (2014) (claims of non-disclosure require a showing of prejudice or materiality)
- Furr v. Commonwealth, 454 Mass. 101 (2009) (consideration of sentence received vs. maximum possible at trial when assessing voluntariness)
- Nikas v. Commonwealth, 431 Mass. 453 (2000) (plea invalid if offered without understanding of proceedings)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (distinguishes judge's due process obligations from counsel's Sixth Amendment duties regarding advice on consequences)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla’s reasoning limited to deportation context)