Commonwealth v. Mejia

• Decision Date: 15 February 2023
• Docket Number: 21-P-1122
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. WILLIAM MEJIA.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

COMMONWEALTH
v.
WILLIAM MEJIA.

No. 21-P-1122

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

February 15, 2023

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On June 8, 2019, law enforcement officers seized a firearm, ammunition, and other evidence^[1] during the execution of a search warrant at 7 Carmody Court, apartment 809, in South Boston. The defendant, William Mejia, was subsequently indicted on charges of unlicensed possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition, unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, possession of a loaded firearm, discharging a firearm within five hundred feet of a dwelling, and being an armed career criminal. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming that the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to establish probable cause that the defendant

1

participated in the alleged criminal act, and failed to provide a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the defendant's apartment. The motion judge held a nonevidentiary hearing in the Superior Court and subsequently issued a memorandum of decision and order denying the motion to suppress. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the defendant's application for leave to file this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as amended, 476 Mass. 1501 (2017). We affirm.

Legal standards.

We review the question whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant de novo. See Commonwealth v. Perkins, 478 Mass. 97, 102 (2017). Our analysis of the sufficiency of a search warrant application begins and ends with the "four corners of the affidavit" (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. O'Day, 440 Mass. 296, 297 (2003). In this regard, "we determine whether, based on the affidavit in its entirety, the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that a crime had been committed . . . and that the items described in the warrant were related to the criminal activity and probably in the place to be searched" (citation omitted). Id. at 298. "[P]robable cause to believe [that] evidence of criminal activity will be found in a particular place must be...