Com. v. Royce

Citation358 Mass. 597,266 N.E.2d 308
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Decision Date29 January 1971
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. William ROYCE.

Albert L. Hutton, Jr., Boston, for defendant.

Gerald F. Muldoon, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.

REARDON, Justice.

The defendant was indicted and found guilty on three counts of armed robbery in the Superior Court in a trial held subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G. He is here on an assignment of errors, arguing to us only two of the four that he originally alleged.

1. The defendant bases his first assignment on G.L. c. 277, § 72A, as appearing in St.1965, c. 343, which makes mandatory upon the respective officers in charge of prisoners that they notify any prisoner currently serving time of any 'untried indictment, information or complaint * * * pending in any court in the commonwealth against * * * (him).' The prisoner then has the right to apply to the court in which the charges are pending for 'prompt trial or other disposition' of the charges. The statute further requires that '(a)ny such prisoner shall, within six months after such application is received by the court, be brought into court for trial or other disposition of any * * * indictment, information or complaint, unless the court shall otherwise order.' The defendant contends that the requirements of the statute were not satisfied because he filed such an application on July 3, 1969, while confined at the Correctional Institution at Walpole on an unrelated charge but his trial did not take place until April 6, 1970.

We note, however, that the defendant's application was with reference to a warrant against him for armed robbery issued from the Municipal Court of the Roxbury District on September 4, 1968. That warrant is not before us, and the sole evidence here that it and the indictment dated October 15, 1969, on which the defendant was tried and convicted in the Superior Court in Suffolk County related to the same crime is the bare statement of counsel for the defendant to that effect. In fact, the defendant testified he had never seen the warrant.

Assuming, however, that the warrant and the subsequent indictment related to the same offence, there was still no violation of G.L. c. 277, § 72A, which requires that the application under it be to the court in which the charges are pending and that that court bring him to trial 'or other disposition' within six months. The Municipal Court from which the 1968 warrant issued had power only to arraign him on the charge of armed robbery (G.L. c. 218, § 26; Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 331 Mass. 510, 120 N.E.2d 645) and, in fact, the defendant was arraigned on November 19, 1969, a little over four months after his application. The fact that this arraignment actually occurred in the Superior Court rather than in the Municipal Court is immaterial. Alternatively, if the application is taken as imposing the six months requirement on the Superior Court, its effective date cannot be until October 15, 1969, when the indictment was returned, and it appears that the trial was held within six months of that date. Thus the defendant's first argued assignment lacks merit.

2. The defendant charges secondly that an in-court identification of him by one Ahearn, a bank guard who witnessed the robbery, was prejudicially tainted by Ahearn's intervening identification of him at the Superior Court in Plymouth County where the defendant was standing trial with two other men. Assuming that the identification at the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Com. v. Gove
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1974
    ...effect of the statute on successive indictments, informations or complaints relating to the same offense. See Commonwealth v. Royce, 358 Mass. 597, 599, 266 N.E.2d 308 (1971); COMMONWEALTH V. STEWART, ---, MASS. ---, 279 N.E.2D 697 (1972)C. See also fns. 7, 8, The Sixth Amendment to the Con......
  • Com. v. Underwood
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 20, 1975
    ...The charge of which an applicant seeks a speedy disposition must have a status before a particular court (Commonwealth v. Royce, 358 Mass. 597, 599, 266 N.E.2d 308 (1971); Commonwealth v. Gove, supra), and the statute directs that application be made to that Accordingly, we focus initially ......
  • Com. v. Leaster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1972
    ...Balukonis, 357 Mass. 721, 725, 260 N.E.2d 167, denial of habeas corpus affirmed, Allen v. Moore, 453 F.2d 970 (1st Cir.); Commonwealth v. Royce, Mass., 266 N.E.2d 308 (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1971) 61, 62--63); Commonwealth v. Wilson, Mass., 276 N.E.2d 283 (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1971) 1731, 1734); Commonweal......
  • Com. v. Jones
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 26, 1978
    ... ... See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Royce, 358 Mass. 597, 599, 266 ... N.E.2d 308 (1971); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 361 Mass. at 858, 279 N.E.2d 697; Commonwealth v. Underwood, 3 Mass.App. at --- - --- B, 335 N.E.2d 915 ...         Between indictment and trial there was a nine-month and ten-day delay. However, 72A does not ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT