Garvin v. Com.

Decision Date03 February 1967
PartiesStuart GARVIN v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Louis M. Nordlinger, Boston, for petitioner.

Richard W. Murphy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

Garvin by petition for a writ of error seeks to review sentences on several of fourteen indictments. A single justice found the facts and (in June, 1966, before the decisions in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and in Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882) reserved and reported the case without decision for the determination of the full court.

Garvin, then aged fifteen, was suspected of various offences in January and February in 1959, including breaking and entering and assault with intent to rape. He was arrested on March 1, 1959, at or near his house, after several days of police surveillance. A button found in the house of one victim matched the remaining buttons on a coat with a missing button worn by Garvin when arrested. His mother was informed promptly of his arrest and later was told that he was to be placed with the Youth Service authorities. In the course of interrogation by the police, lasting one hour to two hours, he confessed to serious offences. Garvin was identified that evening by one alleged victim at her apartment, on the next morning in a police lineup by other alleged victims, and thereafter at a hospital by an alleged victim there confined. He also went to his sister's house where some pawn tickets were obtained from hiding. One of these tickets was for a watch belonging to an alleged victim.

On March 2 Garvin was taken to the earliest juvenile session of the Municipal Court in Roxbury following his arrest. There he was remanded for later hearing and decision whether to deal with him as a juvenile or to hold him for trial in the Superior Court. At that later hearing, he was represented by an experienced attorney, then associated with the Voluntary Defenders Committee. He had previously been interviewed by a member of the committee's legal staff. Upon consideration of the case by the grand jury, the indictments mentioned above were returned.

In June, 1959, Garvin (represented by counsel) was tried before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury on seven of the indictments. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord (Concord Reformatory). These sentences are not now before us for review.

In December, 1959, when represented by new counsel, he was tried upon another indictment before a different Superior Court judge and a jury. Before this sentence the judge committed Garvin for observation at the sex treatment center at Bridgewater. He was determined to be 'a sexually dangerous person.' Thereafter, in February, 1960, he was sentenced to a term of six to twelve years in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole (Walpole), to take effect 'forthwith and notwithstanding' the prior 1959 sentence to the Concord Reformatory. At this trial, after a voir dire examination, Garvin's confession was received in evidence as voluntary. This 1960 sentence is not now under review.

Garvin's counsel advised him to consider whether he would not do well, in the light of the evidence against him, to plead guilty to the remaining indictments. After two continuances of the trial of two of the remaining cases and further consultation with his counsel who 'conscientiously gave Garvin his best advice,' Garvin in February, 1961, made pleas of guilty to most of the remaining indictments. He was given concurrent sentences (by a third Superior Court judge) of twelve to fifteen years at Walpole. These are the sentences now under review.

Garvin's petition for a writ of error and assignments of error alleged, in somewhat vague terms, violation of his constitutional rights in various respects in connection with his arrest and interrogation on March 1, 1959. The single justice heard testimony from Garvin, three police officers, and each of Garvin's attorneys. 1 Upon his findings, the foregoing statements of fact have been based. It is not contended that these findings, or those mentioned below, 2 are not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Gomez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 10, 2018
    ...449 Mass. at 830-831, 874 N.E.2d 654 ; Commonwealth v. Quinones, 414 Mass. 423, 432, 435, 608 N.E.2d 724 (1993) ; Garvin v. Commonwealth, 351 Mass. 661, 663-664, 223 N.E.2d 396, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 13, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 12 (1967). These decisions, however, were made in the context......
  • Com. v. Buckley
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • January 15, 2010
    ...guilty, sample the penalty and then elect to litigate preexisting nonjurisdictional legal questions." Ibid. See Garvin v. Commonwealth, 351 Mass. 661, 663-664, 223 N.E.2d 396, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 13, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 12 (1967) (an illegally obtained confession cannot be the basis......
  • Com. v. Clark
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1980
    ...alleged errors. Cf. Rachal v. Commonwealth, supra; Commonwealth v. Zion, 359 Mass. 559, 563, 270 N.E.2d 395 (1971); Garvin v. Commonwealth, 351 Mass. 661, 663, 223 N.E.2d 396, appeal dismissed, 389 U.S. 13, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 12 (1967). We turn now to the merits of the case. 2. Double......
  • Com. v. Cabrera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • October 12, 2007
    ...47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). Moreover, a plea of guilty by its terms waives all nonjurisdictional defects. Garvin v. Commonwealth, 351 Mass. 661, 663-664, 223 N.E.2d 396, appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 13, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 12 (1967) (even illegally obtained confessi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT