Commonwealth v. Vaughn
| Docket Number | 22-P-201 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. NIGEL VAUGHN. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (), 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
The defendant, Nigel Vaughn, appeals from an order of a Superior Court judge denying his motion for resentencing based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. We discern no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice in light of the strong sentencing arguments counsel made and the inapplicability of the psychiatric and medical records submitted to the motion judge to the concerns that motivated the trial judge's sentence. Further concluding that the sentencing judge properly treated the defendant's 2004 firearms conviction at sentencing, we affirm the denial of the motion for resentencing.
On April 12, 2005, the defendant, who was a regular at Larry's Sports Bar in Fall River, was in and out of the bar all day. That evening, Helena Judge and her boyfriend, Anthony Austin, drove to the bar to pick up the Helena's brother, Shane Judge. Upon arriving, Helena looked for Shane.[1]When she could not find him, she called him to see where he was. While they waited for Shane to arrive, Austin ordered a drink from the bar and Helena waited to play a game of pool.
Once he had his drink, Austin found a seat to watch a basketball game. When he sat down, a white hooded sweatshirt, which did not belong to him, fell to the ground. At that moment, the defendant, whom Helena knew only by a nickname, approached Austin and Helena and "started talking trash about the sweater." Helena grabbed the sweatshirt from the floor, handed it to the defendant, and told the defendant it was an accident. The defendant muttered "[s]omething about people being disrespectful" as he left the bar.
Approximately fifteen minutes later, Shane arrived at the bar and ordered a drink. A few minutes later, the defendant rushed back into the bar, this time accompanied by three other men. The defendant confronted Helena and Shane and asked Helena, "Did you call somebody on me?" Before Helena could respond, Shane started speaking. One of the defendant's friends punched Shane in the face and a fight erupted between the two groups.
When Austin saw the commotion, he approached the defendant and punched him. The defendant pulled out a gun, aimed it at Austin, and started shooting. A bullet struck Austin's left hand. A second bullet struck Austin in the back and exited through his stomach. Next, the defendant aimed his gun at Helena and fired. A bullet entered through Helena's chin before traveling through her throat and lung and eventually lodging itself in her back. Another bullet struck Shane in the back.
In response to the shootings, patrons ran out of the bar and, in doing so, pushed Austin outside. The defendant hopped into his car and attempted to run Austin over as he drove away. By the time police arrived, the defendant had already fled the scene. He was later identified by the victims.
Austin sustained a hernia and a broken hand. Helena sustained a "U"-shaped scar from where the bullet entered her throat and another scar from a tube that went through her throat while she was hospitalized to drain the wound. Helena also developed a cyst from the bullet that entered her lung.
We focus on the events surrounding the defendant's sentencing hearing. The defendant was indicted for four counts of armed assault with the intent to murder, G. L. c. 265, § 18 (b); four counts of mayhem, G. L. c. 265, § 14; one count of unlawfully carrying a firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a); and one count of unlawfully possessing ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h). Prior to trial, the judge dismissed one count of armed assault with intent to murder and one count of mayhem. At trial, the judge allowed the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty on the charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm in light of the absence of evidence of the requisite barrel length. The jury returned guilty verdicts on the remaining charges. After the verdicts issued, the Commonwealth moved for immediate sentencing. Defense counsel, however, requested a continuance on the basis that "[the defendant] has family members that don't live in the area, that couldn't be here for the trial, that would want to write letters for him." The judge allowed defense counsel's request for a continuance.
At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth recommended that, for the three counts of armed assault with the intent to murder, the defendant be sentenced for ten to twelve years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. For the three counts of mayhem, the Commonwealth recommended the same sentence, to be served concurrently with the sentences for armed assault. For the unlawful possession of ammunition, the Commonwealth recommended that the conviction be placed on file.
Defense counsel recommended a prison sentence of six to nine years. In making his recommendation, defense counsel argued that the defendant was Defense counsel stated that the defendant was "left without a lot of significant role models in his life" and that he had never served a "significant period of time" of incarceration. Defense counsel provided the judge with letters of support from the defendant's family and friends, which described the defendant "as a caring person and someone who is capable of rehabilitation." At the conclusion of his argument, defense counsel reiterated that consecutive sentences were not appropriate.
In sentencing the defendant, the trial judge explained that "[o]f greatest concern in assessing the danger that [the defendant] continues to pose to society is the fact that he refuses to stay away from guns." She stated that in 2004 The judge further stated that the defendant nonetheless committed the crimes at Larry's Sports Bar one month later.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that "a lengthy period of time in state prison [was] necessary to protect the public and for [the defendant] to appreciate the gravity of his actions." The judge sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of nine to ten years in prison for each of the first two armed assault convictions. The judge imposed ten years of probation on the remaining armed assault conviction. For the remaining convictions, the judge imposed concurrent prison sentences.
The defendant appealed from his convictions, raising no issues concerning sentencing or the effectiveness of counsel. In November 2010, a panel of this court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 1106, rev. denied, 458 Mass. 1111 (2010). In January 2011, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). In April 2012, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, which raised, inter alia, an issue concerning the effectiveness of trial counsel but not raising any issues concerning sentencing. Later that same month, the defendant filed a notice of appeal. In May 2014, a panel of this court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 85 Mass.App.Ct. 1118 (2014).
In October 2021, the defendant filed a second motion for a new trial. The defendant's second motion for a new trial, unlike his first motion for a new trial, was based on ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing.
In support of his second motion for a new trial, the defendant provided psychiatric and medical records which recounted the defendant's homelessness and problems with impulse control as a child. To supplement the records, the defendant submitted an expert report which recounted the significant abuse that he suffered as a child, though much of the report was based on the defendant's uncorroborated reporting.[2] In addition, the defendant presented his own affidavit, an affidavit from trial counsel, and an affidavit from appellate counsel. In a margin endorsement the motion judge denied the defendant's motion "for all the reasons stated in the Commonwealth's opposition." This appeal followed.
When a defendant appeals from the denial of a motion for a new trial, we review "only to determine whether there has been a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 473 Mass 832, 835 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42, 47 (2015). "Where a motion for a new trial is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that (1) the 'behavior of couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial