Commonwealth v. Deidania Brown.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 25-P-0198
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-198

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DEIDANIA BROWN. 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The movant, Deydania O. Taylor-Cameron, appeals from the

denial of her motion which sought removal of a criminal case

from the court activity record information (CARI) of "Deidania

Brown," and from the movant's MassCourts public records. We

affirm.

Neither the movant's underlying motion nor her appellate

brief cite to any statute or case law in support of her request

to have this name removed from the docket or from other court

records. This does not rise to the level of an appellate

1Our custom is to spell the defendant's name as it appears in the criminal complaint, which is not in the record before us. However, the parties appear to agree that the name used in the complaint was "Deidania Brown." argument, and we treat it as waived. See Mass. R. A. P.

16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See also

Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College, 493 Mass. 648, 671 (2024)

(declining to consider argument made without citation to

supporting legal authority); Halstrom v. Dube, 481 Mass. 480,

483 n.8 (2019) (same).

Even if the movant's appellate claims were not waived, they

are without merit. The movant claims that the probation

department failed to comply with an order issued by a now

retired Boston Municipal Court judge in 2015 that the underlying

case of a "Deidania Brown" be removed from the CARI system. She

also sought an order to remove the information from the

underlying case from her MassCourts public record. The movant,

however, did not provide a copy of her CARI with her motion or

submit an affidavit in support of it. The probation department

provided the motion judge with a copy of the movant's CARI and

this case does not appear on it. As the motion judge found, the

movant has not shown that the probation department failed to

comply with the retired judge's order, and thus the relief she

requested was properly denied.

In large measure, the movant's underlying motion and her

brief here rely exclusively on the retired judge's 2015 order

that the case be removed from the CARI system. What she failed

to acknowledge was the subsequent rescinding of that order in

2 2023, when an inquiry by the central identity management group

(CMIG) resulted in a consolidation of the records of Deidania

Brown and Deydania Taylor-Cameron. Without an affidavit filed

in support of the movant's motion that refutes CMIG's

consolidation of those identities, the motion judge was entitled

to rely on CMIG's findings and deny the motion. This was not an

abuse of discretion. See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169,

185 n.27 (2014).

To the extent the movant sought to have her record

expunged, it too was properly denied. The denial of a motion to

expunge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

Commonwealth v. K.W., 490 Mass. 619, 624 (2022).

Pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 100K, a judge has discretion to

expunge a criminal record if two conditions are met. "First,

the judge must make findings based on clear and convincing

evidence that the relevant criminal record was created because

of one or more of the reasons listed" in § 100K (a). 2 Matter of

2 These reasons include the following:

"(1) false identification of the petitioner or the unauthorized use or theft of the petitioner's identity;

"(2) an offense at the time of the creation of the record which at the time of expungement is no longer a crime, except in cases where the elements of the original criminal offense continue to be a crime under a different designation.

"(3) demonstrable errors by law enforcement;

3 Expungement, 489 Mass. 67, 68 (2022). Second, and only after

making such findings, a judge may consider whether expungement

would be "in the best interests of justice." Id., quoting G. L.

c. 276, § 100K (b). Here, the movant failed to support her

motion with any evidence that would be sufficient to support any

of the enumerated reasons for expungement. There was no error,

and no abuse of discretion.

Order denying motion to remove or expunge case from court records affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Ditkoff & Toone, JJ. 3),

Clerk

Entered: December 8, 2025.

"(4) demonstrable errors by civilian or expert witnesses;

"(5) demonstrable errors by court employees; or

"(6) demonstrable fraud perpetrated upon the court."

G. L. c. 276, § 100K (a).

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.