Opinion
June 2, 1995.
Larceny. Statute, Amendment.
Rodney Armour, pro se, submitted a brief.
This is an appeal from a decision of a single justice denying a complaint in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G.L.c. 249, § 5 (1992 ed.), of Rodney Armour, whom we shall call the defendant. The complaint is based on the contention that the defendant's incarceration for a violation of probation was improper because the statute under which he had been convicted, G.L.c. 266, § 30, as amended through St. 1987, c. 24, § 1, (larceny over $100) had been amended at the time of his sentencing to larceny over $250. See St. 1987, c. 468, § 1. The mere fact that the statute under which the defendant was convicted was later amended so as to be more favorable to other persons than the law applied to the defendant does not invalidate the original statute. Commonwealth v. Purdy, 408 Mass. 681, 685 (1990). Furthermore, the Commonwealth contends, and the defendant does not dispute, that the amount of the defendant's larceny far exceeds the larger sum specified in the amended statute.
Judgment affirmed.