Opinion
10-P-1852
11-10-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. OLIVER ST. CYR.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 M
Upon review of the numerous proceedings before the various lower court judges, and the briefs filed in this court, nothing has been made to appear that would cause us to conclude that the judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for relief.
In short, we agree with the Commonwealth that the defendant's request for relief fails not only on procedural grounds, see Commonwealth v. Christian, 429 Mass. 1022 (1999), but on substantive grounds as well.
The hearing judge did not act unreasonably or improperly. In short, he merely modified the terms of the defendant's probation in a manner consistent with the original sentence. See Commonwealth v. Morales, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 844 (2007).
Concluding as we do, it is not necessary to discuss the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance, because it has not been shown on this record that the second prong of the Saferian test was satisfied, or even could have been. See Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).
--------
Order dated April 8, 2010, denying motion for relief affirmed.
By the Court (Grasso, Brown & Kantrowitz, JJ.),