Commonwealth v. Crowell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Crowell

198 N.E.2d 623, 347 Mass. 771, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 915

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 198 N.E.2d 623 (Commonwealth v. Crowell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Crowell, 198 N.E.2d 623, 347 Mass. 771, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 915 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal The judge denied the defendant’s motion under G. L. e. 278, § 29C, that he be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to so much of an indictment, charging him with murder in the first degree, as charged murder in the second degree; that his sentence under G. L. e. 265, § 2, be revoked; and that he be allowed to stand trial. The denial of the motion rested in the discretion of the judge. Commonwealth v. Sitko, 346 Mass. 765, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Abboud, 346 Mass. 765. Although the case is not properly before us in any one of the several permissible ways recognized and discussed in Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266-268, we have, nevertheless, in our consideration of the case, studied the record and the transcripts in the successive proceedings and conclude that the action of the judge was eminently just. We disregard the “bill of exceptions” which was never allowed (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 472-473) and the “assignment of errors” which does not relate to any exception saved by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gray, 314 Mass. 96, 102. We treat the defendant’s “appeal” as an effort to impeach the judgment upon matter of law apparent on the record. Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266. We And no error in this respect or otherwise.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal The judge denied the defendant’s motion under G. L. e. 278, § 29C, that he be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to so much of an indictment, charging him with murder in the first degree, as charged murder in the second degree; that his sentence under G. L. e. 265, § 2, be revoked; and that he be allowed to stand trial. The denial of the motion rested in the discretion of the judge. Commonwealth v. Sitko, 346 Mass. 765, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Abboud, 346 Mass. 765. Although the case is not properly before us in any one of the several permissible ways recognized and discussed in Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266-268, we have, nevertheless, in our consideration of the case, studied the record and the transcripts in the successive proceedings and conclude that the action of the judge was eminently just. We disregard the “bill of exceptions” which was never allowed (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 472-473) and the “assignment of errors” which does not relate to any exception saved by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gray, 314 Mass. 96, 102. We treat the defendant’s “appeal” as an effort to impeach the judgment upon matter of law apparent on the record. Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266. We And no error in this respect or otherwise.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.E.2d 623, 347 Mass. 771, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-crowell-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack