2015 WL 4067203
Mass.2015Background
- In 1984 William M. Shipps Jr. was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree and other crimes; he received two consecutive life terms without parole plus additional concurrent life terms. (Commonwealth v. Shipps, 399 Mass. 820)
- Postconviction, Shipps filed multiple motions for a new trial and appeals; those motions were denied and leave to appeal from a later denial was refused under the § 33E "gatekeeper" rule. (Commonwealth v. Shipps, 440 Mass. 1018)
- In 2014 Shipps filed a county‑court complaint for declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A, arguing his murder‑in‑the‑first‑degree sentences were unconstitutional because the statute in effect when his crimes occurred authorized only the death penalty (which had been held unconstitutional). See District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648.
- Shipps sought a declaration that his sentence (or any sentence) for those offenses violated the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses because after Watson the statutory penalty framework left no valid punishment for his conduct.
- A single justice dismissed the complaint; the SJC affirmed, holding declaratory relief was not an appropriate vehicle to evade postconviction procedures and, on the merits, Shipps’ substantive claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of declaratory relief to challenge sentence post‑conviction | Shipps: may obtain declaratory judgment that his sentence is unconstitutional under c. 231A | Commonwealth: declaratory relief cannot be used to circumvent § 33E and postconviction procedures | Court: Declaratory relief unavailable here; must use postconviction motion in trial court (affirmed dismissal) |
| Merits — whether offenses between Watson and 1983 had no permissible punishment | Shipps: after Watson and before statutory amendment, there was no valid penalty for first‑degree murder, so any sentence is unconstitutional | Commonwealth: statutory and precedential framework does not leave offenders unpunished; claim lacks merit | Court: Merits rejected; defendant not left without punishment; claim meritless (single justice opinion accepted) |
Key Cases Cited
- District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648 (1980) (held death penalty statute unconstitutional in relevant context)
- Commonwealth v. Shipps, 399 Mass. 820 (1987) (opinion on Shipps’s convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Shipps, 440 Mass. 1018 (2003) (postconviction history; § 33E gatekeeper application)
- Napolitano v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 240 (2000) (declaratory relief not a substitute for postconviction relief)
- Commonwealth v. Ambers, 397 Mass. 705 (1986) (proper route to challenge sentence is postconviction motion)
- Tyree v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1034 (2007) (cannot circumvent § 33E by filing in county court)
- Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655 (2013) (exceptional treatment where constitutional issue had broad impact; contrasted here)