Doe v. Chairperson of Mass. Parole Bd.
| Decision Date | 18 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | SJC-10239. |
| Citation | 911 N.E.2d 204,454 Mass. 1018 |
| Parties | John DOE & others<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> v. CHAIRPERSON OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD & others.<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
RESCRIPT.
In 2006, the General Court required persons convicted of designated sex offenses who were "placed on probation," G. L. c. 265, § 47, or under "court ordered parole supervision or under community parole supervision for life," G. L. c. 127, § 133D½, to wear a global positioning system (GPS) devise (or "any comparable device"), for the length of the probation or parole. St. 2006, c. 303, §§ 7 & 8. The plaintiffs in this case were on parole and not subject to GPS monitoring when G. L. c. 127, § 133D½, was enacted and became effective. The Massachusetts Parole Board (board) notified each plaintiff that, "due to your status on parole for a sex offence(s) and/or community parole supervision for life," he would be subject to GPS monitoring as of December 21, 2006.
The plaintiffs commenced an action in the Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing G.L. c. 127, § 133D½, against them, and requiring the GPS devices be removed from the plaintiffs' persons and their homes. After a hearing, the judge denied the plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunctive relief, and the plaintiffs appealed, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118, second par. We granted their application for direct appellate review.
Our focus, on review from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, is "whether the judge applied proper legal standards and whether there was reasonable support for his evaluation of the factual questions." Hull Mun. Lighting Plant v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 399 Mass. 640, 642, 506 N.E.2d 140 (1987), citing Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 615, 405 N.E.2d 106 (1980). In Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559, 560, 911 N.E.2d at 189 (2009), we concluded that, while G.L. c. 265, § 47, applies to an individual "placed on" postconviction probation after the effective date of the statute (December 20, 2006), ex post facto considerations under both the Commonwealth and Federal Constitutions additionally require that it apply only to predicate sex offenses committed after that date. Although a different statute, G.L. c. 127, § 133D½, applies to parolees such as the plaintiffs, the language in the two statutes is substantially identical.3 Application of the statute to the plaintiffs in this case is impermissible because it implicates the same ex post facto considerations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Mass. Parole Bd.
...Federal and the State Constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. See ibid. (probation); Doe v. Chairperson of the Mass. Parole Bd., 454 Mass. 1018, 1019, 911 N.E.2d 204 (2009) (parole) (Chairperson ). However, the court also held that a sentencing judge retained the "discretion......
-
Com. v. Cory
... 911 N.E.2d 187 ... 454 Mass. 559 ... COMMONWEALTH ... Russell M. CORY ... SJC-10314 ... Supreme Judicial Court of ... from seven to ten years in State prison. 4 In May of 2006, the defendant was released on parole, but because he was also serving his probationary sentence, the probation department assumed ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Mercado
...facto violation because the defendant committed his crime before the passage of St.2006, c. 303, § 7. See Doe v. Chairperson of the Mass. Parole Bd., 454 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2009). See also Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559, 563–573 (2009). We agree with the Commonwealth, however, that the ......