Baranow v. Commissioner of Correction
| Decision Date | 14 June 1973 |
| Citation | 297 N.E.2d 67,1 Mass.App.Ct. 831 |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
| Parties | William A. BARANOW v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & another. |
John F. Palmer, Boston, for plaintiff.
David A. Tiberii, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commissioner of Correction.
Before ROSE, KEVILLE and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is a bill for declaratory relief wherein the plaintiff, an inmate in a Massachusetts correctional institution, seeks to have resolved a controversy existing with the commissioner of correction as to the date of his release. The plaintiff was sentenced on July 5, 1950 (mittimus No. 2687) to a term of eight to ten years. On November 29, 1950, he received two additional sentences, the first (mittimus No. 24256) to a term of ten to fifteen years, 'to take effect from and after the expiration of the sentence defendant is now serving' (mittimus No. 2687); the second (mittimus No. 24258) to a term of three to five years, 'to take effect from and after the expiration of sentence 24256.' Subsequently on January 31, 1967, he was sentenced (mittimus No. 25846) to a term of seven to ten years, 'to take effect from and after the expiration of any sentence said defendant is now serving' (emphasis supplied). The sentence being served at the time of the imposition of the sentence in mittimus No. 25846 was the sentence in mittimus No. 24256 (). The plaintiff contends that the last sentence imposed (mittimus No. 25846) should run from and after mittimus No. 24256 () and not from and after the aggregate of all the sentences which had been imposed upon him up to that date, which is the position of the commissioner of correction. The trial judge ruled on the undisputed facts appearing in the pleadings that the sentence in mittimus No. 25846 takes effect after the expiration of all previous sentences. The plaintiff excepted to this ruling. The impact of administering punishment by means of consecutive sentences rather than having them served concurrently with each other is to provide added confinement beyond the initial sentence. This can only be accomplished by means of separate and distinct sentences related to each other only by the expiration of the earlier one as the determinant of when the second shall commence. The fact that the two sentences imposed on November 29, 1950, were to be served consecutively, and the fact that for the purposes of parole eligibility the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Kane
...sentence, though unmentioned. Cf. Kinney, petitioner, 5 Mass.App. 457, 459, 363 N.E.2d 1337 (1977); Baranow v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 Mass.App. 831, 297 N.E.2d 67 (1973).15 Counsel had indicated at the June 2, 1983, hearing that if the judge allowed the motion to revise or revoke or ......
-
Babcock v. Pepe
...erred in its interpretation of federal law. The cases relied on by Babcock do not compel a different result. Baranow v. Comm'r of Corr., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 831, 297 N.E.2d 67 (1973), involved the sentencing of the defendant for several unrelated crimes over a period of years. The question was w......
-
In re Babcock, 07-P-384.
...to sentences that have been aggregated, which, as set forth above, is the case here. Contrast Baranow v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 831, 832, 297 N.E.2d 67 (1973). 3. Conclusion. Because, for the reasons stated, the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from State ......
-
Petition of Wolcott
...or sentences the ... [plaintiff] is now serving." The Supreme Judicial Court, citing with approval Baranow v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 831, 832, 297 N.E.2d 67 (1973), held that "[t]he effect of a from and after sentence phrased in those terms is to make the sentence consec......