Fruchtman v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fruchtman v. Commonwealth

871 N.E.2d 489, 449 Mass. 1031, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 590

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 N.E.2d 489 (Fruchtman 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

Fruchtman v. Commonwealth, 871 N.E.2d 489, 449 Mass. 1031, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 590 (Mass. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Leonard Fruchtman appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for a reduction in his bail under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Fruchtman was charged with forgery of a document and uttering a false check. A judge in the District Court set bail in connection with those charges, and a judge in the [1032]*1032Superior Court denied his petition for bail review. The case is now before us on Fruchtman’s memorandum and appendix pursuant to SJ.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Leonard Fruchtman, pro se.

The District Court docket, which we have obtained on our own initiative, states that after the single justice denied relief, Fruchtman pleaded guilty to all charges against him and has been sentenced. This renders moot his request for a reduction in bail. See, e.g., LaChance v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1013 (2002).

Appeal dismissed.

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

Leonard Fruchtman appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for a reduction in his bail under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Fruchtman was charged with forgery of a document and uttering a false check. A judge in the District Court set bail in connection with those charges, and a judge in the [1032]*1032Superior Court denied his petition for bail review. The case is now before us on Fruchtman’s memorandum and appendix pursuant to SJ.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Leonard Fruchtman, pro se.

The District Court docket, which we have obtained on our own initiative, states that after the single justice denied relief, Fruchtman pleaded guilty to all charges against him and has been sentenced. This renders moot his request for a reduction in bail. See, e.g., LaChance v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1013 (2002).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 N.E.2d 489, 449 Mass. 1031, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fruchtman-v-commonwealth-mass-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack