Rodwell v. Commw.
Decision Date | 28 July 2000 |
Docket Number | SJC-08052 |
Citation | 732 N.E.2d 287,432 Mass. 1016 |
Parties | (Mass. 2000) JAMES RODWELL vs. COMMONWEALTH. No.: Decided: |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stephanie M. Glennon for James Rodwell.
Marguerite T. Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Pursuant to the "gatekeeper" provision of G. L. c. 278, 33E, a single justice of this court has reported to the full court the sole question whether James Rodwell (defendant) has waived his claim, first raised in his fifth motion for postconviction relief, that his conviction for armed robbery is duplicative of his conviction for murder in the first degree and, accordingly, that his sentence for armed robbery is illegal. We conclude that the defendant has waived this claim.
We briefly summarize this case's lengthy procedural history. In 1981, a jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree after being instructed on theories of premeditation and felony-murder; armed robbery (predicate felony for felony- murder); and unlawful carrying of a firearm. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, a concurrent sentence of from fifteen to twenty years on the armed robbery conviction, and a concurrent sentence of from three to five years on the firearm conviction.
In 1983, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The trial judge denied the motion. In 1985, we affirmed the convictions and the denial of the motion for a new trial, and reviewed the entire case pursuant to G. L. c. 278, 33E. Commonwealth v. Rodwell, 394 Mass. 694 (1985). In 1986, the defendant filed his second motion for a new trial which was denied by the trial judge. The defendant, pursuant to 33E, filed an application in the county court for leave to appeal to the full court which was denied. The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which was denied. See Rodwell v. Fair, 834 F.2d 240 (1st Cir. 1987) ( ).
The defendant filed a third motion for a new trial in 1993. After a hearing, a Superior Court judge (who was not the trial judge), denied the motion and a single justice denied the defendant's application to appeal to the full court. The defendant, in 1997, filed his fourth motion for a new trial. A Superior Court judge denied the motion concluding that the defendant had waived the issues raised. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to reconsider which was also denied. The defendant petitioned the county court for permission to appeal to the full court. This request was denied.
In 1998, the defendant filed his fifth postconviction motion raising, inter alia, for the first time, the illegality of his armed robbery sentence as duplicative.1 A Superior Court judge refused to consider the issues raised concluding that they had been waived. The defendant filed a petition to the single justice to appeal to the full court and the single justice allowed so much of the petition as concerned the waiver of the claim regarding the legality of the armed robbery sentence.
The defendant contends that a motion to correct an illegal sentence brought pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), 378 Mass. 900 (1979), can be raised at any time and thus cannot be waived by a failure to raise the claim at the earliest possible opportunity. We disagree.
Rule 30 (a) provides that "[w]hoever is imprisoned . . . pursuant to a criminal conviction may at any time, as of right, file a written motion requesting the trial judge to release him or to correct the sentence which he is then serving . . . ." While on its face the rule places no restriction on the time within which a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be brought, the rule is subject to the waiver provisions of Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (2), 378 Mass. 900 (1979), which provides:
The defendant argues that, because he was convicted of a capital crime, his claim is governed by 33E and not rule 30 (c) (2). Section 33E governs the appeal of postconviction motions in a capital case. Commonwealth v. Francis, 411 Mass. 579, 582 (1992). However, the waiver rules expressed in rule 30 (c) (2) are similar to the waiver principles that we apply pursuant to 33E. Commonwealth v. Ambers, 397 Mass. 705, 707 n.2 (1986). Commonwealth v. Pisa, 384 Mass. 362, 366 n.5 (1981). If a defendant fails to raise a claim that is generally known and available at the time of trial or direct appeal or in the first motion for postconviction relief, the claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Ambers, supra; Commonwealth v. Pisa, supra. See also Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (2); Commonwealth v. Deeran, 397 Mass. 136, 139 (1986); Commonwealth v. Layne, 386 Mass. 291, 297 (1982). This requirement is critical to achieve finality in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lattimore v. Dubois
...Massachusetts has a routinely enforced and consistently applied waiver rule under Mass.R.Crim.P. 30. E.g. Rodwell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1016, 1018, 732 N.E.2d 287 (2000) ("If a defendant fails to raise a claim that is generally known and available at the time of trial or direct appeal ......
-
Com. v. Simmons
...imposed on indictment no. 81-1918. See Commonwealth v. Azar, 444 Mass. 72, 77, 825 N.E.2d 999 (2005). Cf. Rodwell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1016, 1018, 732 N.E.2d 287 (2000) (speculating that rule 30[a] motion would be unlikely to assist defendant who had completed challenged sentence but ......
-
Com. v. Valliere
...to assure that limited judicial resources are not consumed by claims that should have been raised earlier." Rodwell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1016, 1018, 732 N.E.2d 287 (2000). See Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618, 640, 677 N.E.2d 652 (1997); Commonwealth v. Pisa, supra at 366-367, ......
-
Com. v. Drew
...normal and valid rule that failure to object to a jury instruction is a waiver of any claim of error'"). See Rodwell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1016, 1018, 732 N.E.2d 287 (2000). The Commonwealth points to the passage of twenty-five years, a direct appeal, and four motions for a new trial d......