Commonwealth v. George

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. George

533 N.E.2d 1332, 404 Mass. 1002, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 41

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 533 N.E.2d 1332 (Commonwealth v. George) 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. George, 533 N.E.2d 1332, 404 Mass. 1002, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 41 (Mass. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

The Appeals Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal because of his failure to comply with the time limitation for filing notice of appeal, contained in the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. 25 Mass. App. Ct. 1001, 1002 (1988). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. We agree with the Appeals Court and dismiss the defendant’s appeal.

The outcome of this case is controlled by Commonwealth v. Cowie, ante 119 (1988), decided today. In each case the defendant’s trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal and thus the defendant lost his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. The central issue in both cases is whether, under Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985), due process requires that the defendant’s direct appeal be reinstated. Because we concluded in Commonwealth v. Cowie, supra at 123, that a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), 378 Mass. 900 (1979), and a subsequent appeal from an adverse ruling thereon, fully comports with due process, we dismiss the defendant’s appeal.

So ordered.

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

The Appeals Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal because of his failure to comply with the time limitation for filing notice of appeal, contained in the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. 25 Mass. App. Ct. 1001, 1002 (1988). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. We agree with the Appeals Court and dismiss the defendant’s appeal.

The outcome of this case is controlled by Commonwealth v. Cowie, ante 119 (1988), decided today. In each case the defendant’s trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal and thus the defendant lost his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. The central issue in both cases is whether, under Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985), due process requires that the defendant’s direct appeal be reinstated. Because we concluded in Commonwealth v. Cowie, supra at 123, that a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), 378 Mass. 900 (1979), and a subsequent appeal from an adverse ruling thereon, fully comports with due process, we dismiss the defendant’s appeal.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 N.E.2d 1332, 404 Mass. 1002, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-george-mass-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack