Commonwealth v. Wallace, 81 N.E.3d 1203

Background

Wallace was arrested in 2011 with 37 individually packaged rocks of crack cocaine, cash, phones, and scales; indicted in the 2011 case for possession with intent to distribute and a school/park-zone count (nolle prossed as part of the plea).
While awaiting resolution of the 2011 case, Wallace had been convicted after trial in a 2010 case in which chemist Sonja Farak analyzed the drugs; he was sentenced to seven years for the 2010 conviction.
Wallace pleaded guilty in the 2011 case pursuant to a plea agreement calling for a five‑year sentence to run concurrently with the seven‑year 2010 sentence; the plea judge accepted that recommendation with reluctance.
After Farak’s misconduct was revealed, Wallace’s 2010 conviction was vacated, he pleaded to a lesser offense in the 2010 case, and his sentence there was reduced to 3.5 years.
Wallace then moved to withdraw his 2011 guilty plea, arguing Farak’s misconduct in the 2010 case undermined the fairness of his 2011 plea because his concurrent sentences were interrelated; the motion judge (the same judge who took the 2011 plea) denied the motion.
On appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed, holding Wallace failed both Ferrara‑Scott prongs: Farak’s misconduct did not occur in the 2011 case and Wallace did not show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea had he known of the misconduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether government misconduct (Farak) that affected a separate case justifies withdrawing a plea in a case where Farak was not the chemist	Farak’s misconduct in Wallace’s 2010 case undermined the fairness of his 2011 plea because the concurrent sentences were interrelated; had he known, he might not have accepted the 2011 plea	Misconduct must have occurred in the defendant’s case; Farak did not participate in the 2011 case and there is no nexus	Denied — misconduct must have occurred in the case at issue; here it was too attenuated to satisfy Ferrara‑Scott first prong
Whether Wallace demonstrated a reasonable probability he would have rejected the 2011 plea had he known about Farak’s misconduct	Wallace asserted that, because the 2010 sentence was later reduced, he was deprived of the benefit of the bargain and therefore would not have accepted the 2011 plea if he had known	Wallace failed to aver he would have gone to trial; facts show strong evidence of guilt in the 2011 case and no substantial defenses	Denied — Wallace’s affidavit was indefinite (“can’t say”) and did not show it would have been rational to reject the plea under the second Ferrara‑Scott prong
Whether the plea’s benefit was defeated by later reduction of the concurrent sentence in the 2010 case	The concurrent nature made the sentences inseparable; reduction in the 2010 sentence deprived Wallace of the plea’s expected advantage	The prosecutor never guaranteed an inseparable sentence; Wallace received the bargained five years concurrent with the then‑existing seven years and made no contemporaneous objection	Denied — Wallace received the agreed benefit at the time; his interpretation of an inseparable bargain was unreasonable

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (establishes Ferrara framework and requires nexus that misconduct occurred in the defendant’s case)
Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97 (applied Ferrara‑Scott to Farak; found Farak’s misconduct egregious but declined conclusive presumption that it affected every case)
Ferrara v. United States, 465 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006) (two‑prong test for vacating pleas based on government misconduct)
Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 Mass. 497 (standard for granting postsentence motions to withdraw pleas)
Commonwealth v. Furr, 454 Mass. 101 (due process requires pleas be voluntary and intelligent)
Commonwealth v. Parzyck, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 195 (test for whether defendant reasonably relied on prosecutor’s promise)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (reasonableness/rationality of decisions to accept or reject plea offers)