Com. v. Zion

• Decision Date: 07 June 1971
• Citation: 359 Mass. 559,270 N.E.2d 395
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. John G. ZION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 395

270 N.E.2d 395

359 Mass. 559

COMMONWEALTH v. John G. ZION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued May 3, 1971.

Decided June 7, 1971.

David M. Roseman, Boston, for defendant.

Roger A. Karz, Legal Asst. Dist. Atty. (Terence M. Troyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.

Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, QUIRICO and BRAUCHER, JJ. QUIRICO, Justice.

This is a claim of appeal, after pleas of guilty to five indictments charging the defendant with the commission of felonies, from the denial of his motion that he be examined under the provisions of G.L. c. 123, § 100A. ¹ We describe the proceedings to the extent necessary for the purposes of this decision.

On April 6, 1969, the grand jury returned five indictments against the defendant charging him with the commission of sevendifferent felonies on March 5, 1969. All of the alleged felonies arose out of a single episode. On April 14, 1969, the clerk of courts filed with the lowest numbered of the five indictments a certificate that notice had been given to the Department of Mental Health as required by G.L. c. 123, § 100A. On April 16, 1969, the defendant, who was represented by counsel, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to each indictment and count thereof. On the same date the judge presiding at the arraignment ordered the defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital under the provisions of G.L. c. 123, §§ 100 and 105, for a period not to exceed thirty-five days.

On May 6, 1969, the assistant medical director of the Bridgewater State Hospital sent the court a written report stating the defendant's history as bearing on his mental condition, and concluding with the following language: '(T)here is some question as to whether or not he really is mentally deficient. He certainly has many sociopathic features in relation to antisocial behavior in this society. It is the opinion of the staff that he is competent to stand trial and his return to court is therefore recommended. Diagnosis: (1) Antisocial Personality. (2) Mental Deficiency, Mild.' ² On May 9, 1969, the defendant was returned from the hospital and held for trial on the indictments. Thereafter, and before the start of trial, a copy of the psychiatric report was furnished to the defendant's trial counsel who was appointed on May 12, 1969, when original counsel withdrew by leave of court.

When the indictments were reached for trial on Friday, June 20, 1969, his counsel informed the trial judge that the defendant had not been examined under G.L. c. 123, § 100A, and he requested that the judge order that such an examination be made and that the trial be postponed pending such an examination and report thereon. After a hearing, the request was denied and the defendant excepted to the denial. Thereupon the trial was ordered to proceed under the provisions of G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, and the jury were empanelled. On Tuesday, June 24, 1969, after most of the evidence relating to the defendant's participation in the alleged crimes had been presented to the judge and jury, the defendant retracted his prior pleas of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty on each indictment and count thereof. The judge accepted the pleas of guilty and continued the cases for disposition. On June 26, 1969, the Commonwealth moved for sentence. During his argument on the matter of sentencing, counsel for the defendant again requested the trial judge to order that the defendant be examined under G.L. c. 123, § 100A. On the same date the court imposed concurrent sentences to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole on all indictments. The record before us shows that the trial judge denied the request made by the defendant's counsel, in argument, that the defendant be examined; and it shows no claim of exception to such denial.

Within twenty days after being sentenced, the defendant filed as to each indictment a claim of appeal specifically limited to the denial of his 'motion and requests to be examined pursuant to and under (G.L. c. 123, § 100A).' Thereafter he also filed as to each indictment two assignments of error, one relating to the denial of his motion to be examined, and the other to the court's failure to order that he be examined, 'apart from such motion.'

The defendant did not raise the defence of lack of criminal responsibility at his partial trial. Instead he pleaded guilty to all indictments and counts therein. He does not now contend that he did not enter the pleas voluntarily, and he does not seek to withdraw the pleas for any reason. He does not claim any error of law in the sentences which were imposed upon him. ³ He did not save any exceptions to anything which occurred after he pleaded guilty. He does not now allege or contend that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. In the language of his brief, 'All he seeks here is such on examination (under G.L. c. 123, § 100A) to which, he claims, he is entitled.' In our view, on the record before us the defendant has no standing at this point in his case to make this inscrutable claim.

The transcript before us is limited to those portions of the proceedings of June 20, 1969, and June 26, 1969, wherein counsel for the defendant asked the trial judge to order the defendant examined under G.L. c. 123, § 100A. The request of June 20, 1969, was expressly denied and an exception was saved. That exception, although alleged as the basis of the defendant's first assignment of error, did not survive the defendant's action in pleading guilty on June 24, 1969. By pleading guilty the defendant admitted all facts well charged in the indictments against him, and nothing was left to be done but pass sentence. Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 115 Mass. 151, 152. Commonwealth v. Skalberg, 333 Mass. 255, 256, 130 N.E.2d 684. Commonwealth v. L'Italien, 352 Mass. 424, 426, 226 N.E.2d 192, cert. den. sub nom. L'Italien v. Massachusetts, 389 U.S. 962, 88 S.Ct. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 374. If there were any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to the time when the defendant pleaded guilty, they were rendered irrelevant by such pleas. By pleading guilty the defendant foreclosed his right to request a decision by this court on legal questions which he had raised prior to entering the guilty pleas. He may not waive or terminate a trial by pleading guilty, sample the penalty and then elect to litigate pree xisting nonjurisdictional legal questions. Garvin v. Commonwealth, 351 Mass. 661, 663, 223 N.E.2d 396, cert. den. sub nom. Garvin v. Massachusetts, 389 U.S. 13, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 12. Macey v. Commonwealth, 352 Mass. 519, 521--523, 226 N.E.2d 225. Macey v. Scafati, 395 F.2d 768 (1st Cir.), cert. den. 393 U.S. 892, 89 S.Ct. 218, 21 L.Ed.2d 174. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, 349 F.2d 592, 595 (3d Cir.). Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir.). Cooper v. Holman, 356 F.2d 82, 84 (5th Cir.).

As the result of our holding above, it is unnecessary to decide whether the defendant, against whom five indictments charging felonies were returned on the same date, is one 'who is known to have been indicted for any other offense more than once' within the meaning of the quoted words as used in G.L. c. 123, § 100A. ⁴ If we assume, but without so deciding, that the defendant is such a person, the failure to examine him in the manner provided by the statute does not in any way...