Commonwealth v. John Cassidy.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-P-0517
• Status: Unpublished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

23-P-517

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JOHN CASSIDY.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was

convicted of four counts of unlawful possession of a large

capacity feeding device, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m);

one count of unlawful possession of a large capacity firearm, in

violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); one count of unlawful

possession of an assault weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 140,

§ 131M; and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition, in

violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1). His convictions were

affirmed by a panel of this court. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy,

91 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2017). The Supreme Judicial Court

granted further appellate review and ultimately affirmed his

convictions. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)

(Cassidy I). The defendant filed a petition for writ of

certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 5, 2018. See Cassidy v. Massachusetts, 139 S. Ct.

276 (2018).

The defendant subsequently filed a motion in the Superior

Court entitled "pro se defendant's motion for clarification and

ruling." A Superior Court judge denied the motion, and the

defendant appealed. While recognizing that the defendant's

motion was procedurally defective, a panel of this court treated

it as one for a new trial and affirmed the Superior Court

judge's order. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 100 Mass. App. Ct.

1119 (2022) (Cassidy II). The defendant again exhausted all

rights of appeal from the order. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy,

489 Mass. 1102 (2022). See also Cassidy v. Massachusetts, 142

S. Ct. 2712 (2022).

This appeal stems from the denial of the defendant's most

recent motion for a new trial, which he filed after the Supreme

Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v.

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Bruen). The Commonwealth argued

that Bruen did not affect Cassidy's claims of error because its

holding did not speak to states' authority to require firearm

licenses, maintain licensing schemes, or place restrictions on

certain types of firearms. Therefore, the Commonwealth

maintained, whatever the effect of Bruen on District of Columbia

v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), it did not undermine Cassidy I's

historical analysis of Massachusetts's firearms laws regulating

2 "dangerous and unusual weapons" such as assault weapons and

large capacity firearms. The Commonwealth also directed the

defendant to Texas, where he now resides, to raise his claim

that his rights are being violated because his Massachusetts

felony convictions limit his right to own firearms there. A

Superior Court judge (motion judge) agreed with the

Commonwealth, denied the motion "for the reasons stated in the

Commonwealth's opposition," and denied the defendant's request

for additional time to respond to the Commonwealth's opposition,

filed on the same day as the motion judge's ruling. The

defendant nevertheless filed a response to the Commonwealth's

opposition to his motion for a new trial. The motion judge,

"[a]fter review and consideration," again denied the motion for

a new trial.

We discern no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's

denial of the motion for a new trial at issue in this appeal.

See Commonwealth v. Duart, 477 Mass. 630, 636 (2017). The

defendant's current appeal merely reiterates his arguments in

Cassidy II. He acknowledged as much during oral argument. To

the extent the defendant's current brief recasts, in light of

Bruen, components of arguments he made in his previous appeals

as challenges under Bruen, the effort is not persuasive. To the

extent the defendant contends "the Second Amendment [was] [his]

license [to carry firearms]," he offered the motion judge no

3 tenable legal support for his position, and we are aware of

none. Finally, even assuming that he was correct that the

Supreme Judicial Court incorrectly determined that assault

weapons are properly considered "dangerous and unusual weapons"

subject to regulation under Massachusetts law, a conclusion we

do not draw, we reiterate that "we are without power to reverse

or modify a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, something

that the defendant acknowledges." Cassidy II, 100 Mass. App.

Ct. at 1119.

Order entered March 23, 2023, denying motion for new trial affirmed.

By the Court (Hand, Hershfang & Brennan, JJ. 1),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: March 4, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.