Commonwealth v. Phelan

• Decision Date: 25 March 1930
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. PHELAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

271 Mass. 21

171 N.E. 53

COMMONWEALTH

v.PHELAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 25, 1930.

Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Suffolk County; Fosdick, Judge.

Francis M. Phelan was sentenced on plea of guilty on two indictments charging larceny. To each indictment he later filed a motion bearing caption ‘Motion to Vacate the Judgment in Said Case and for Leave to Withdraw the Plea of Guilty,’ and from denial of motion, defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

1. Criminal law k905-Motion for new trial-Motion to withdraw plea-Substitution.

Motion to vacate judgment and for leave to withdraw plea of guilty, considered as motion for new trial, was properly disallowed as not lying after plea of guilty.

Defendant pleaded guilty to charge of larceny and was sentenced. Later, by motion, he attempted to vacate judgment and to get leave to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that at the time of hearing he was not mentally responsible and that upon hearing he could and would present evidence to prove he was innocent of the charge of larceny.

2. Criminal law k274, 998-Motion to withdraw plea of guilty-Time for filing.

Motion to vacate judgment and to withdraw plea of guilty, not filed before end of sitting at which sentence was imposed, is too late as motion to modify sentence.

3. Criminal law k997-Writ of error coram nobis-Common-law writ-Supersedure.

Writ of error, provided by statute in criminal cases, supersedes all other provisions of common law, including writ of error coram nobis (G. L. c. 250, ss 9-13, as amended by St. 1925, c. 279, s 3, and St. 1926, c. 329, s 7).

F. T. Doyle, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

D. L. Smith and J. F. Cronan, both of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

The defendant was sentenced on December 12, 1927, on his pleas of guilty, on two indictments charging him with larceny, to the State prison and forthwith was committed on execution of the sentences. On October 19, 1928, he filed as to each indictment a motion bearing the caption ‘Motion to Vacate the Judgment in Said Case and for Leave to Withdraw the Plea of Guilty.’ In each motion it was represented in substance that at the time of said plea the defendant was not guilty but was innocent of the offenses charged; that at the time he made said plea his mind was so affected that he did not comprehend the nature of the plea so made; that upon the hearing on the motion he would present evidence to prove that he was innocent of the offences charged in the indictment, and that for various reasons he was not mentally responsible and was unable to appreciate that he had an absolute defence to the charges. The prayers in substance were that the judgment be vacated, that he be allowed to withdraw his previous plea and to enter a plea of not guilty, and that he have a trial by jury. When the motions came on to be heard, the defendant requested rulings of law to the effect that the court had power to grant the motions. These requests were denied. The judge refused to hear any evidence in support of the allegations set forth in the motions, refused to make findings of fact and denied the motions as matter of law. The defendant's exceptions bring the case here.

[1][2] The rulings and the disposition of the motions were right. So far as the motions were in the nature of motions for a new trial, they were denied rightly because a motion for a new trial does not lie where there has been sentence on plea of guilty without trial. So far as these motions related to modification of sentence they could not be considered because manifestly not filed before the end of the sitting at which the sentence was imposed. Commonwealth v. Soderquest, 183 Mass. 199, 200, 201, 66 N. E. 801. It was said in Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 20, 140 N. E. 470, 474: ‘An unexecuted sentence may be revised before the end of the sitting. * * * After sentence has been pronounced three methods of relief alone are open to a defendant in a criminal case: (1) Motion for new trial under the statute; * * * (2)...