Commonwealth v. Selavka
469 Mass. 502
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant pled guilty to eleven counts of possession of child pornography under G. L. c. 272, § 29C and was sentenced to two concurrent terms with seven years probation; GPS monitoring was mandated by G. L. c. 265, § 47 but not imposed at sentencing.
- Commonwealth sought GPS as a probation condition after the original sentence, arguing statutory requirement; the court granted GPS monitoring for the probationary period.
- Defendant’s probation began after release on parole in 2009; GPS was later added by a 2012 motion filed by the Commonwealth.
- The 2012 modification occurred about a year after the initial sentence, with the defendant having served his incarceration and begun probation.
- The defendant moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) to vacate the GPS addition; he contends lack of authority to modify sentence and violation of double jeopardy.
- The court ultimately vacated the GPS monitoring order as impermissible, holding that the belated correction violated finality principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to modify sentence to add GPS | Commonwealth argues initial sentence illegal for lacking GPS | Selavka contends no proper mechanism to modify sentence | Rule 29(a) proper vehicle; court had some authority to correct but not after finality |
| Double jeopardy and finality | Correction within statute-only context does not violate finality | Delay created finality; GPS adds punishment after finality | Belated GPS addition violated double jeopardy and cannot stand |
| Rule 29(a) as vehicle for correction | Rule 29(a) allows correction of illegal sentence within 60 days | Rule 29(a) not explicit for Commonwealth to seek correction | Rule 29(a) is proper vehicle for challenge to illegal sentence and potential correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bruzzese, 437 Mass. 606 (2002) (no final imposed sentence; modification to add punishment barred by double jeopardy when final)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 458 Mass. 11 (2010) (double jeopardy limits on probation modifications; finality concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659 (1998) (timeliness and finality of sentencing corrections; potential increases challenged)
- Commonwealth v. Cumming, 466 Mass. 467 (2013) (discretionary modification context; corrected sentence within procedural bounds)
- Aldoupolis v. Commonwealth, 386 Mass. 260 (1982) (finality versus societal interest in enforcement; balancing factors)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1981) (no multiple punishment where correction remains within statutory bounds)
- Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (1947) (judge may correct to impose statutorily mandated penalties)
- Dunbrack v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 502 (1986) (timely discovery of error; limits on correction of illegal sentences)