Com. v. Celeste
| Citation | 358 Mass. 307,264 N.E.2d 683 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Alexander CELESTE. |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Thomas C. Troy, Dorchester, for defendant.
Robert Snider, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and QUIRICO, JJ.
The defendant was tried on indictments charging him with conducting a small loans business without being licensed, with being an accessory before the fact to maliciously threatening injury to a person with intent to extort, and with conspiracy. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on each of the indictments and the court sentenced the defendant to not less than six nor more than twelve years in State prison in the accessory cases. 1 The trial was held subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, and the cases are here by appeal.
The defendant filed two assignments of error. These relate to denials by the trial judge of the defendant's motions for a new trial and his motion to revise or revoke sentence. These motions were based on the judge's alleged error in considering, on disposition, two prior felony convictions 2 shown in the probation record. In those cases the defendant had pleaded guilty without assistance of counsel.
After the verdicts were announced at the trial of the instant case in January of 1967, a hearing was held prior to the imposition of sentence. The judge read the defendant's probation record, which contained notations of the two felony convictions, various other offenses, infractions committed while in prison, his employment, educational history, military service, residences, family situation and physical and mental condition. There was nothing in the probation record to show that the defendant has waived his right to counsel in the two earlier convictions. On January 24, 1967, the judge sentenced the defendant. The defendant did not request a review of the sentences by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. On March 22, 1967, the defendant filed the motions to revise or revoke sentence. On September 26, 1969, he filed the motions for a new trial. On October 9, 1969, a hearing was held on the motions for a new trial, and they were denied. At the hearing the judge said, The judge then stated, The judge heard but did not take any action at that time on the defendant's motions to revise or revoke sentence. On October 10, 1969, he denied them.
The defendant argues that his prior convictions (referred to in fn. 2) were obtained in violation of the rule later enunciated in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, so that the use of these convictions to enhance his punishment would be unconstitutional. He maintains that consequently he should be granted a new trial 'or, in the alternative, that the judgment of sentence be revoked and the case remanded to the Superior Court for the redetermination of * * * (the) sentence.'
The suggestion that the defendant be granted a new trial is utterly devoid of any merit. The record of the prior convictions was not introduced at the trial of the cases. It could have no effect whatsoever on the verdicts. Consequently, there was no error in the denial of the motions for a new trial.
In regard to the defendant's contention that the sentences in the accessory cases should be revoked and redetermined, the defendant relies upon the case of Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States said that 'To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright to be used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Coleman
...character, family life, and employment situation may be evaluated. See id. at 250-251; 69 S.Ct. at 1084-1085; Commonwealth v. Celeste, 358 Mass. 307, 309-310, 264 N.E.2d 683 (1970). A trial judge also may consider indictments or evidence of similar or recurrent criminal conduct if it is rel......
-
Osborne v. Com.
...sentencing judge, in his discretion, may take into account any subsequent good behavior of the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Celeste, 258 Mass. 307, 310, 264 N.E.2d 683 (1970) (sentencing judge may consider hearsay, the defendant's behavior, family life, employment, and various other facto......
-
Com. v. LeBlanc
...of information in imposing sentence. Williams v. New York, supra, 337 U.S. at 246--250, 69 S.Ct. 1079. See Commonwealth v. Celeste, 358 Mass. 307, 310, 264 N.E.2d 683 (1970). Numerous opinions of other courts indicate that there is no constitutional bar against a sentencing judge considerin......
-
Com. v. Bianco
...the guidelines. A judge has discretion to consider a broad range of information in imposing sentence. Commonwealth v. Celeste, 358 Mass. 307, 309-310, 264 N.E.2d 683 (1970). Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). However, the exercise of this dis......