DiPietro v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DiPietro v. Commonwealth

339 N.E.2d 924, 369 Mass. 964, 1976 Mass. LEXIS 1108

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 339 N.E.2d 924 (DiPietro v. Commonwealth) 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

DiPietro v. Commonwealth, 339 N.E.2d 924, 369 Mass. 964, 1976 Mass. LEXIS 1108 (Mass. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

These appeals challenge the denial by a single justice of this court of the petitioner’s motions to stay execution of sentences pending appeal. The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial in the Superior Court, of manslaughter and robbery and has been sentenced to long, concurrent terms. These petitions were addressed to the discretion of the single justice. G. L. c. 279, § 4. See Stranad v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 847 (1974), and cases cited. There was no abuse of discretion in entering judgments denying the petitions. Where the petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of success on appeal, there can be no abuse of discretion in denying a stay of execution of a sentence pending that appeal. In the circumstances, the petitioner has been obliged to argue the merits of his forthcoming appeal on less than the full trial record. Because of that fact, we are reluctant to comment at length on the issues which the petitioner will raise in his appeals and which he has argued to [965]*965us in support of his requests for stays of execution. However, neither of the two issues which have been argued to us is persuasive on its face.

Conrad W. Fisher (Alfred B. Cenedella, III, with him) for the plaintiff. James P. Donohue, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

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

These appeals challenge the denial by a single justice of this court of the petitioner’s motions to stay execution of sentences pending appeal. The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial in the Superior Court, of manslaughter and robbery and has been sentenced to long, concurrent terms. These petitions were addressed to the discretion of the single justice. G. L. c. 279, § 4. See Stranad v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 847 (1974), and cases cited. There was no abuse of discretion in entering judgments denying the petitions. Where the petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of success on appeal, there can be no abuse of discretion in denying a stay of execution of a sentence pending that appeal. In the circumstances, the petitioner has been obliged to argue the merits of his forthcoming appeal on less than the full trial record. Because of that fact, we are reluctant to comment at length on the issues which the petitioner will raise in his appeals and which he has argued to [965]*965us in support of his requests for stays of execution. However, neither of the two issues which have been argued to us is persuasive on its face.

Conrad W. Fisher (Alfred B. Cenedella, III, with him) for the plaintiff. James P. Donohue, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 N.E.2d 924, 369 Mass. 964, 1976 Mass. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipietro-v-commonwealth-mass-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack