Commonwealth v. Scott
86 Mass. App. Ct. 812
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Lanny Steed Scott was convicted on five counts (kidnapping; assault by means of a dangerous weapon; assault and battery; assault and battery causing serious bodily injury; malicious destruction of property) and originally received interdependent sentences including an 8–10 year term (Count 1) and a 2–5 year term on Count 2 to run on and after Count 1.
- On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Count 4 conviction (assault causing serious bodily injury) for insufficient evidence and ordered judgment for the defendant on that count; the case was remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts.
- At resentencing (more than five years after the original sentencing), the judge reimposed the original 8–10 year term on Count 1 and vacated the earlier 2–5 year prison sentence on Count 2 (which had already been fully served), replacing it with five years of probation to run on and after Count 1.
- The Commonwealth relied on Leggett to justify restructuring the interdependent sentencing scheme so long as aggregate punishment did not exceed the original aggregate; the defendant argued double jeopardy and due process barred imposing probation on a count for which he had already served the sentence.
- The Appeals Court held that, under intervening SJC precedents (notably Cumming, Cole, and Parrillo), a defendant who has fully served a component sentence may not be resentenced on that component in a way that increases punishment; thus resentencing on Counts 2, 3, and 5 (already served) was barred and the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with those principles.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing may add probation on a count whose prison sentence was fully served | Restructuring interdependent sentences is permissible so long as aggregate punishment does not exceed original aggregate (Leggett) | Double jeopardy bars resentencing a component sentence that has been fully served; probation constitutes additional punishment | Resentencing on counts already fully served is barred; probation on Count 2 violated double jeopardy principles (Cumming/Cole/Parrillo controlling) |
| Scope of finality after a partial vacation of convictions | No reasonable expectation of finality in any single component of an interdependent scheme until aggregate scheme is complete | Defendant had a legitimate expectation of finality in sentences already served | Where only one conviction is vacated, lawful components already served retain finality and may not be increased |
| Whether probation is "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes | Probation does not necessarily increase punishment if aggregate does not exceed original | Probation is punitive because revocation can lead to incarceration (and credit issues) | Probation counts as punishment; may not be imposed as to a fully served component if it increases punishment |
| Remedy on remand after vacating one conviction for insufficiency of evidence | Court may restructure sentencing scheme consistent with precedent | Relief should not expose defendant to additional punishment on served components | Sentences on counts already served must stand; remand for resentencing only as to outstanding components consistent with double jeopardy limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355 (SJC) (vacating one conviction for insufficient evidence; remand for resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cumming, 466 Mass. 467 (SJC) (resentencing may not increase aggregate punishment; probation constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 468 Mass. 294 (SJC) (resentencing barred where probationary sentence already served)
- Commonwealth v. Parrillo, 468 Mass. 318 (SJC) (restructuring must be quantitatively fair; cannot resentence on convictions already served)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 458 Mass. 11 (SJC) (discussion of double jeopardy and finality at common law)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 730 (Mass. App. Ct.) (held vacation of a sentencing scheme can create a clean slate for resentencing of interdependent sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Selavka, 469 Mass. 502 (SJC) (addresses double jeopardy where defendant had reasonable expectation of finality in partially served sentence)
- Commonwealth v. White, 436 Mass. 340 (SJC) (contrast where entire sentencing scheme was a nullity and resentencing could proceed)