COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH DYKENS
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
February 17, 2016
473 Mass. 635 (2016)
Middlesex. October 5, 2015. - February 17, 2016. Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.
This court concluded that a criminal defendant could challenge collaterally, on double jeopardy grounds, his convictions based on his pleas of guilty to three indictments charging different attempts to burglarize the same residence on or about the same date, where, given that the record included at least a minimal description of the key evidence establishing each of those attempts, this court could decide whether the indictments were duplicative without going beyond the record. [638-640]
Two indictments charging attempted burglary, to which the defendant pleaded guilty, were not duplicative of a third indictment charging attempted burglary, to which the defendant also pleaded guilty, where each of the defendant‘s acts, as alleged in the indictments, fit squarely within the definition of an overt act, and where the proximity in time, manner, and place of the defendant‘s conduct was not in and of itself dispositive. [640-645] DUFFLY, J., dissenting, with whom LENK and HINES, JJ., joined.
An indictment charging possession of a burglarious tool or implement (a rock) did not allege a crime, where a rock is not a tool or implement within the meaning of
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 31, 2005.
A motion to withdraw a plea and vacate convictions, filed on October 11, 2013, was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Timothy St. Lawrence for the defendant.
Hallie White Speight, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
CORDY, J. This case is before us following the denial by a Superior Court judge of Kenneth Dykens‘s motion to vacate several convictions resulting from his guilty pleas in connection with a February, 2005, arrest for attempted burglary and other offenses. See
We transferred Dykens‘s appeal to this court on our own motion to decide whether, where a defendant has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of attempted unarmed burglary, he may subsequently challenge his guilty pleas pursuant to
We conclude that although Dykens may bring his claim under rule 30 (a), the attempt statute,
1. Background. In the early morning hours of February 10, 2005, John and Jacqui Cram of Malden telephoned 911 after they heard the sounds of breaking glass and saw a figure moving around on their property. Malden police Officers Robert Southbridge and Brian Killion responded to the call and observed the following on their arrival: (1) a ladder that the Crams had last seen lying on the ground had been placed against the house to provide access to a second-story window; (2) a screen had been torn off a first-floor window; and (3) a sliding glass door at the
The officers observed fresh footprints in the snow, which Selfridge followed through neighboring streets and yards and over a chain link fence; he discovered Dykens hiding among some rocks. The officer ordered Dykens not to move, but Dykens attempted to escape. The two men scuffled, and Killion eventually arrived to assist. After a struggle, the officers were able to subdue Dykens and handcuff him. As they stood him up to transport him to the police station, Dykens kicked Killion in the face with a shod foot.
In March, 2005, a grand jury indicted Dykens on seventeen counts stemming from his arrest, including three counts of attempted unarmed burglary1 and one count of possession of a burglarious instrument (a heavy rock), which are at issue in this appeal.2 Dykens pleaded not guilty to all charges at his arraignment, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss eight of the seventeen indictments. As to two counts of attempted unarmed burglary, Dykens argued that they were duplicative of a third count. A judge denied the motion as to the multiple indictments for attempted unarmed burglary.
On October 17, 2005, Dykens pleaded guilty to the three counts
After Dykens was released from prison, a probation violation warrant issued. On March 22, 2013, a Superior Court judge held a final probation surrender hearing. He found Dykens in violation of the term of his probation and sentenced him to two years in a house of correction on the charge of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and an additional two years on the charge of possessing a burglarious implement, to be served from and after that. The judge also terminated Dykens‘s probation on the remaining convictions.
On October 11, 2013, Dykens moved to vacate two of his convictions of attempted armed burglary and his conviction of possessing a burglarious tool or implement pursuant to rule 30 (a). In his motion, Dykens asserted that the convictions of attempted burglary were duplicative and should therefore be vacated and dismissed. He also argued that the rock he used to break the sliding door was not a burglarious instrument within the meaning of
2. Discussion. a. Collateral attack on guilty plea. Both the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Massachusetts common law prohibit the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. Commonwealth v. Rollins, 470 Mass. 66, 70 (2014), citing Marshall v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 529, 534 (2012). It is well settled in our jurisprudence that a “guilty plea will not preclude a court from hearing a constitutional claim that the State should not have tried the defendant at all.” Commonwealth v. Negron, 462 Mass. 102, 104 (2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Clark, 379 Mass. 623, 626 (1980).
A guilty plea is “an admission of the facts charged and is itself a conviction” (quotation and citation omitted), Negron, 462 Mass. at 105, and is properly challenged under rule 30 (a), which provides:
“Any person who is imprisoned or whose liberty is restrained pursuant to a criminal conviction may at any time, as of right, file a written motion requesting the trial judge to release him or her or to correct the sentence then being served upon the ground that the confinement or restraint was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
In Negron, 462 Mass. at 106-107, we held that a defendant is not precluded from challenging his convictions (based on guilty pleas) on double jeopardy grounds where the defendant claims that the charges pleaded to are duplicative on their face and further expansion of the record or evidentiary findings are not required. Having concluded that the defendant could challenge the convictions as duplicative, the court went on to analyze whether they were in fact duplicative. Id. at 108-111.3
The relevant convictions in Negron were for different crimes, armed assault in a dwelling and aggravated burglary, under different statutes, but arising out of the same criminal conduct. Id. at 103. The court analyzed the elements of the crimes and concluded that the former was not a lesser included offense of the latter. Id. at 109-111. Consequently, they were not duplicative and convictions of both did not violate double jeopardy. Id. at 109.
Dykens‘s double jeopardy challenge to his multiple convictions of attempted unarmed burglary does not involve a claim that some of the charges are lesser included offenses of the others (and thus duplicative) but, rather, that the underlying conduct on which they are based constitutes but a single continuing offense, and thus multiple convictions and punishments for that offense are duplicative and violative of his right to be free from double jeopardy.
The record in this case includes the three indictments, each alleging a different act in furtherance of each attempt, and the transcript of the hearing at which Dykens pleaded guilty to all
Where the indictments on their face charge three attempts to burglarize the same residence on or about the same date, and the record includes at least a minimal description of the key evidence establishing each of those attempts, we can decide whether the indictments are duplicative without going beyond the record, and therefore, Dykens may bring a double jeopardy challenge.
b. Duplicative convictions. Where a single statute is involved, we must decide “whether two [or more] discrete offenses were proved under that statute rather than a single continuing offense” (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Traylor, 472 Mass. 260, 268 (2015).
Our inquiry starts with what “unit of prosecution”4 the Legislature intended as the punishable act for violations of the attempt statute,
The language of the attempt statute is not explicit as to the permissible unit of prosecution. Dykens asks us to interpret the language in § 6 according to the rules for construction of statutes set out in
We are not persuaded by Dykens‘s reasoning. By its plain language, the purpose of the attempt statute is to penalize those individuals who would have achieved their criminal objective but for factual circumstances that result in failure, interception, or prevention of the crime. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 170 Mass. 18, 20 (1897) (“aim of the [attempt statute] is not to punish sins, but is to prevent certain external results“). Therefore, we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to reward a defendant who, on failing to accomplish his criminal endeavor in one manner, undertakes to achieve the substantive crime anew in another.
Nor do we conclude that the continuing offense doctrine advances Dykens‘s reading of the statute to impose a single punishment for distinct attempts. Dykens relies on a decision from the Appeals Court for the proposition that charged offenses are duplicative where the acts underlying the offense are part of a “continuous stream of conduct occurring within a short time frame and governed by a single criminal design,” and thus united in “time, place, and intent.” Commonwealth v. Howze, 58 Mass.
Howze and Suero are inapposite. Although Dykens‘s acts occurred close together in time and at the same home, his acts were not “bound up with and necessary to” one another as the defendant‘s actions were in those cases. Howze, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 153. Rather, his attempts to gain access via different entry points of the dwelling each could have resulted in a successful break of the dwelling. A different conclusion could be drawn if the defendant was charged with three separate attempts based on the acts of (1) the placement of a ladder to reach a window, (2) the removal of the screen from that same window, and (3) the use of a rock to then break the glass on that window in an effort to gain access. In such circumstances, the three acts would in fact be “bound up with and necessary to” the completion of a single crime, much as the removal of underwear in the perpetration of a rape.
Dykens also points to our decision in Commonwealth v. Bolden, 470 Mass. 274, 274-275 (2014), in which we held that a defendant could not be twice convicted of aggravated burglary under
“Once a person has broken and entered any part of the dwelling, at night, . . . with intent to commit a felony therein, the predicate offense of burglary as to that dwelling is complete. Because arming oneself with a dangerous weapon and assaulting the inhabitants of that dwelling merely aggravate that singular predicate offense, the Commonwealth may not aggregate such actions into multiple units of prosecution under § 14” (footnote omitted).
Id. at 280. Dykens argues that if multiple breaks of a single dwelling do not create distinct, punishable offenses, then multiple attempted breaks into a single dwelling must also constitute a continuous offense.
Dykens‘s reliance on Bolden is misplaced. The unit of prosecution for aggravated burglary is different from the unit of prosecution for attempted burglary. For the latter the proper unit of prosecution is the act necessary to prove the inchoate offense of attempt, and not the substantive crime of burglary. Thus, although in Bolden the unit of prosecution was the act of breaking and entering a singular dwelling, the unit of prosecution for attempted burglary is “any act toward [the substantive crime‘s] commission.”
We have consistently interpreted the attempt statute to require “a showing that the defendant, after preparing to commit the crime, has taken such overt acts toward fulfilling the crime that ‘come near enough to the accomplishment of the substantive offence to be punishable.‘” Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408, 412 (2009), quoting Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 271 (1901). Moreover, where distinct acts form the basis of separate indictments, the Commonwealth must still prove all elements required by the attempt statute for each charge.6
Here, each of Dykens‘s acts, as alleged in the indictments, fit squarely within the definition of an overt act. See Commonwealth v. Foley, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 115 (1987) (complaint or indictment charging attempt must specify overt act). Positioning a
Although the proximity in time, manner, and place of Dykens‘s conduct is relevant to distinguishing discrete acts from a continuous act, such factors are not in and of themselves dispositive. Rather, Dykens‘s attempts to gain entry at different access points of the dwelling weigh heavily against a determination that there was a “continuous stream of conduct.” Howze, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 153. With each failure to gain entry, Dykens had the opportunity to abandon his endeavors. Instead, he moved on to another potential point of access to the home and committed further unrelated acts in an effort to break in, finally fleeing when he awakened the residents inside. The Legislature surely did not intend to reward such persistence by encompassing multiple, discrete attempts within a single unit of prosecution.
Of course, our analysis is not so granular as to say that picking up a ladder is not part of the same course of conduct where the defendant then proceeds to place the ladder against a house. Similarly, a defendant who repeatedly batters a single door with the purpose of gaining entry has likely committed only one attempt at breaking and entering. Dykens‘s case highlights a longstanding comprehension in our jurisprudence of the distinction between constituent acts that, taken together, may amount to an attempt and discrete acts that, in and of themselves, establish the elements required to prove the inchoate offense. See Peaslee, 177 Mass. at 271 (distinguishing between act sufficient to establish attempt and those preparatory actions that, taken together, may amount to attempt).7 See also Commonwealth v. Burns, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 194, 196 (1979), citing Peaslee, supra at 271-274 (“The
essence of the crime of attempt is that the defendant has taken a step towards a criminal offense with specific intent to commit that particular crime. . . . It is not enough to allege that a defendant has formed the intent to commit a crime or that he has merely made preparations for the commission of a crime” [quotation and citation omitted]).
Thus, we conclude that multiple attempted breaks of a single dwelling furthered by separate acts, each coming near to the accomplishment of the crime of burglary, and not bound up with and necessary to each other, may be charged as separate offenses. The question whether factual allegations within multiple indictments adequately charge separate attempts so as to permit their prosecution is one of fact and law and dependent on the particulars in each case. The question is one that, in the first instance, may be for the motion or trial judge in the context of a motion to dismiss and, should the case proceed to trial, is a factual question that a properly instructed jury must decide. In any event, after a jury verdict of guilty on multiple convictions, and on the request of defense counsel for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, “a judge also must determine whether the convictions violate the defendant‘s rights” under the principles of double jeopardy. Suero, 465 Mass. at 222.8
c. Jurisdictional defect. Dykens also asserts that his conviction under
“We interpret statutory language to give effect consistent with its plain meaning and in light of the aim of the Legislature unless to do so would achieve an absurd or illogical result” (quotations omitted). Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 358 (2013). In 1853, the Legislature enacted the predecessor of
From this history we can infer that the statute was enacted with the purpose of punishing individuals making or possessing burglar‘s tools. A question remains, however, as to what constitutes a “tool” or “implement” under § 49, as the statute does not define these terms. We therefore look to the ordinary meaning of the word as of 1853, the year the statute was enacted. See Kerins v. Lima, 425 Mass. 108, 111 n.5 (1997) (where term in statute is undefined, we may conclude that Legislature intended definition that would have been available at time original statute enacted). The 1845 edition of Webster‘s dictionary defined “tool” as “[a]n instrument of manual operation, particularly such as are used by
From these definitions, we can conclude that the words “tool” and “implement” refer to man-made, rather than naturally occurring, items. This conclusion is supported by other language in the statute, which further describes tools and implements as those “adapted and designed for cutting through, forcing or breaking open.”
Our reading of § 49 to exclude naturally occurring objects is also consistent with this court‘s prior interpretations of the statute. We have long recognized that the statute encompasses both ordinary tools and those designed specifically for burglary. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 355 Mass. 170, 176-177 (1969) (ordinary tools may take on character of burglarious tools if they are intended to be used for burglarious purposes); Commonwealth v. Tivnon, 8 Gray 375, 381 (1857) (“A chisel or centre-bit, though a tool in common use for ordinary purposes, is quite as efficacious in the hands of a burglar to carry out his felonious intent, as a jimmy or a lock-picker, which is made for the sole purpose of being used to break and enter buildings“). See also Commonwealth v. Krasner, 358 Mass. 727, 731, S.C., 360 Mass. 848 (1971) (battering ram a burglarious implement under § 49); Commonwealth v. Faust, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 498, 500-501 (2012) (screwdrivers, knife, and flashlights are burglarious instruments under § 49); Commonwealth v. Aleo, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 916, 916-917 (1984) (screwdrivers and dent pullers are burglarious implements under § 49); Commonwealth v. Dreyer, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 565 (1984) (screwdriver a burglarious implement under § 49). In no case have we found that a naturally occurring object, such as a rock, is a tool or an implement within the meaning of the statute.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Commonwealth contends that the rock used by Dykens to smash the Crams’ glass door could have been altered in some way to make it more efficacious in smashing windows. Even if this were the case, in light of the purpose and meaning of § 49, we cannot conclude that a rock is a tool or an implement designed or adapted to effect an individual‘s burglarious intent. Rather we hold that the words “tool” and “implement,” as they appear in § 49, refer to man-made instruments.
3. Conclusion. For the reasons discussed herein, the denial of Dykens‘s motion to vacate two of his convictions of attempted unarmed burglary is affirmed. The denial of his motion to vacate his conviction of possession of a burglarious tool or implement is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for the dismissal of that indictment.
So ordered.
DUFFLY, J. (dissenting, with whom Lenk and Hines, JJ., join). The court today upholds three convictions of attempted unarmed burglary of a single dwelling on a single night, based on the defendant‘s guilty pleas acknowledging his intent to commit unarmed burglary of the dwelling. It is conceivable that a person properly could be convicted of three attempts of unarmed burglary of the same dwelling in a single night, and the defendant here acknowledged in his plea that he intended to commit an unarmed burglary and undertook the acts separately alleged in the indictments: removing an outer screen, positioning a ladder, and smashing a glass door with a rock. As to the indictment alleging the overt act of “smash[ing] a glass sliding door in order to facilitate entry into the home,” I concur in the judgment of the court that the evidence supports a conviction of attempted unarmed burglary. In addition to acknowledging that he had smashed the glass door with a rock, intending to burglarize the dwelling, the defendant agreed with the prosecutor‘s statement at the
As to the other two acts which form the basis of the other two indictments, but were “not the final act in a necessary sequence,” Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 473 Mass. 606, 612 (2016), the evidence fails to show that each act was “so close to the commission of the crime that a reasonable jury could conclude that it was virtually certain that he would have” committed the substantive offense of unarmed burglary. Id. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The attempt statute,
An overt act, even when coupled with the intent to commit a crime, “commonly is not punishable if further acts are contemplated as needful.” Peaslee, supra at 272. Where, as here, a defendant has been interrupted before having undertaken the last necessary act, the focus of the inquiry is whether a defendant‘s
In this case, where each indictment alleged a nonviolent crime, not directed against a person, perpetrated by an unarmed individual, the degree of proximity between the overt act and completion of the crime must be quite narrow. Contrast McWilliams, supra at 611-612. In the circumstances here, a defendant‘s conduct at the point when he or she was interrupted must have brought the defendant so close to perpetration of the offense as to render it “virtually certain” that, but for the interruption, the defendant would have committed the substantive crime. See id. at 612. To determine whether a defendant properly may be convicted of attempt requires that we examine any acts remaining in the sequence, as well as “‘all conduct short of the last act as “preparation.“‘” See Bell, supra at 428 (Gants, J., dissenting in part), quoting Peaslee, supra at 272.3
Here, the indictments alleged that the defendant “did smash a glass sliding door,” “did remove an outer screen,” and “did position a ladder in order to facilitate entry into the home.” To find the
Considering first the conviction based on the defendant‘s admissions that he removed an outer screen from a first-floor window and that he intended to commit a burglary, nothing in the indictment or in the plea colloquy indicates that the absence of the screen alone would have enabled the defendant to enter the dwelling without undertaking several additional steps. If the window were located anywhere above the basement level (the record does not indicate the location or size of the window), entry might have required locating the means, such as a box, to reach the window to achieve entry; the defendant then would have had to climb or stand on that object; if the window were locked, the defendant would have had to break or pick the lock, or break the window, having first obtained an implement with which to do so, before attempting entry into the dwelling. On this record, given the steps that remained before the defendant could have completed the substantive offense, I cannot agree that the act of merely removing an outer screen was “so close to the commission of the crime that a reasonable jury could conclude it was virtually certain that he would have” burglarized the house. McWilliams, supra at 612.
The conviction based on the defendant‘s admission to placing a ladder against the house raises similar concerns. The defendant agreed only that he moved a ladder “in order to facilitate entry” into the dwelling.4 Based on the facts in the record, even if the ladder had been placed directly under a second-floor window, and had been long enough to reach the window (neither fact being established in the record and, given the actions with the rock, the
The court concludes that each act came near enough “to the accomplishment of the crime of burglary” to be punishable, ante at 645, without explaining how it arrives at this conclusion. In light of the scant facts in the record and the gaps discussed above, the court must be inferring from the defendant‘s guilty pleas the existence of the additional facts that would be required to show that he came sufficiently close to committing burglary to support three convictions of attempt. Such an inference, however, is improper; “an admission to a crime generally will not function in itself as an admission to all of the elements of that crime.” Commonwealth v. Sherman, 451 Mass. 332, 337 (2008). See id. at 336-338 (discussing dismissal of guilty plea where defendant claimed his agreement to facts recited by prosecutor did not satisfy elements of crime). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.