Commonwealth v. Gomes

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Gomes

987 N.E.2d 552, 465 Mass. 1003, 2013 WL 1878922, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 324

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 8, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 987 N.E.2d 552 (Commonwealth v. Gomes) 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. Gomes, 987 N.E.2d 552, 465 Mass. 1003, 2013 WL 1878922, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 324 (Mass. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Six years after his convictions were affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2004), and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2006), the defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). The motion alleged that the trial judge perceived the defendant’s trial testimony as perjurious, and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence. The judge stated during sentencing, “I was also — I’m also affected by the testimony of the defendant himself who told a story that was really not believable at all.” The motion was denied by a different judge, as the trial judge had retired. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial in a decision pursuant to its rule 1:28. See Commonwealth v. Gomes, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2012). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review.

Our common law forbids a judge from considering a defendant’s perceived perjured trial testimony in determining the punishment imposed for a criminal conviction. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 806-808 (1984). Consideration at sentencing of such testimony is error that creates a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, even where the sentence imposed does not exceed the prosecutor’s recommendation, as here. Id. at 810.

The trial judge did not merely discredit the defendant’s testimony; she implied that it was perjured and she acknowledged that it “affected” her. We [1004]*1004infer that the judge considered the defendant’s testimony in imposing sentence. Because sentencing was improper, the defendant must be resentenced.

Ethan C. Stiles for the defendant. Roger L. Michel, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

The defendant’s sentences are hereby vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

So ordered.

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

Six years after his convictions were affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2004), and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2006), the defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). The motion alleged that the trial judge perceived the defendant’s trial testimony as perjurious, and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence. The judge stated during sentencing, “I was also — I’m also affected by the testimony of the defendant himself who told a story that was really not believable at all.” The motion was denied by a different judge, as the trial judge had retired. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial in a decision pursuant to its rule 1:28. See Commonwealth v. Gomes, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2012). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review.