94 N.E.3d 764
Mass.2017Background
- Michael J. Walters was convicted in 2012 of stalking, criminal harassment, two restraining-order violations, and two counts of perjury; the trial judge imposed a mix of State prison and house-of-correction sentences, with perjury sentences to run "from and after" the victim-centered sentences.
- Walters began serving the stalking State prison sentence and other concurrent terms in 2012. In 2015 this court vacated the stalking conviction (Commonwealth v. Walters).
- At resentencing (Dec. 11, 2015) the judge vacated the stalking sentence and resentenced the remaining counts, ordering the entire remaining scheme nunc pro tunc to the original June 12, 2012 sentence date.
- As a result the defendant served house-of-correction-range offenses (harassment and a 209A violation) in State prison, and his perjury State-prison term effectively began after those sentences; he was released to probation on Dec. 7, 2016 and is serving five years of probation.
- Walters appealed, arguing the resentencing structure was illegal (claiming he should have been credited so that the perjury sentence was time served), and the Commonwealth argued the issue was moot because he was released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness | Commonwealth: release makes confinement issue moot | Walters: resentencing structure still affects when probation ends (2020 v. 2021) so issue is live | Not moot — defendant has a personal stake because resentencing affects probation end date |
| Legality of resentencing structure | Commonwealth: judge may impose nunc pro tunc structure reflecting original intent; no extra time added | Walters: resentencing was illegal/excessive because it forced him to serve house-of-correction offenses in State prison and Brown requires "from and after" sentences be backdated so perjury was time served | Sentence neither illegal nor unconstitutional: nunc pro tunc dating was within judge's discretion, did not increase aggregate punishment, and Brown applies only to avoid "dead time"; here no dead time existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 472 Mass. 680, 37 N.E.3d 980 (Mass. 2015) (prior opinion vacating stalking conviction)
- Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 336 Mass. 718, 147 N.E.2d 782 (Mass. 1958) ("from and after" sentences may be made nunc pro tunc to avoid "dead time")
- Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 341 N.E.2d 902 (Mass. 1976) (mootness requires loss of personal stake)
- Commonwealth v. McGhee, 472 Mass. 405, 35 N.E.3d 329 (Mass. 2015) (sentence illegal if it exceeds statutory maximum)
- Commonwealth v. Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 580 N.E.2d 383 (Mass. 1991) (appellate review of sentence limited to illegality or unconstitutionality)
- Manning v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Norfolk, 372 Mass. 387, 361 N.E.2d 1299 (Mass. 1977) (prisoner must receive credit to avoid serving more than valid sentence)
- Gardner v. Commissioner of Correction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 31, 775 N.E.2d 426 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (Brown and Manning do not establish a bright-line rule; they apply to avoid dead time)