Commonwealth v. Steven James, SJC-12196
Автор: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Загружено: 2023-04-11
Просмотров: 190
Commonwealth v. James, 477 Mass. 549 (2017)
March 6, 2017, Argued; August 1, 2017, Decided
Counsel: Rosemary Curran Scapicchio (Dennis M. Toomey also present) for the defendant.
Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Judges: Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.
Opinion by: HINES
Irrespective of the subsequent resentencing, after his direct appeal concluded, defendant juvenile continued to stand convicted of first-degree murder and remained convicted of a capital case for purposes of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E ch. 278, § 33E; The statute plainly and expressly prohibited a subsequent appeal from any postconviction motion unless authorized by a single justice as presenting a new and substantial question; Having received the benefit of ch. 278, § 33E ch. 278, § 33E's uniquely thorough review, defendant was afforded a narrower opportunity for appeal of postconviction motions than other defendants and had to comply with the gatekeeper provision; After plenary review, the interests of judicial economy were best served by having a single justice screen postconviction motions, notwithstanding that defendant was a juvenile.
Доступные форматы для скачивания:
Скачать видео mp4
-
Информация по загрузке:
