Commonwealth v. Ovalles

• Decision Date: 20 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–P–86.,12–P–86.
• Citation: 84 Mass.App.Ct. 1126,999 N.E.2d 503 (Table)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Jose OVALLES.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

84 Mass.App.Ct. 1126

999 N.E.2d 503 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH

v.Jose OVALLES.

No. 12–P–86.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

December 20, 2013.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Jose Ovalles, appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the grounds that defense counsel did not accurately advise him of the immigration consequences of the plea and that he suffered prejudice as a result of such ineffective assistance of counsel. We stayed this appeal pending decision in Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013), by the Supreme Judicial Court, which determined that in Massachusetts, the principles of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), did not create a new rule of criminal law or procedure. Review is now appropriate and we conclude that the order denying the defendant's motion to vacate his guilty plea must be vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and factual findings on the issues of whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and whether the defendant suffered prejudice, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 40, 47–48 (2011).¹

So ordered.

1 The defendant's appeal is timely under the principles articulated in Commonwealth v. White, 429 Mass. 258, 263–264, 707 N.E.2d 823 (1999) ; Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 447 Mass. 161, 167, 849 N.E.2d 1246 (2006) ; and Commonwealth v. Martinez, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 595, 598 n. 6, 966 N.E.2d 223 (2012).