Opinion
13-P-743
11-10-2014
COMMONWEALTH v. ANGEL SIME.
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
On July 5, 2012, the defendant pleaded guilty inter alia to trafficking in cocaine of a weight equal to or greater than fourteen grams but less than twenty-eight grams, and possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute. He subsequently filed a motion for new trial based on the fact that Annie Dookhan was the primary chemist who signed all of the drug certificates on which the charges were based. A Superior Court judge denied that motion. While the defendant's appeal of that ruling was pending, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 347-358 (2014). The defendant argues that his appeal is on all fours with Commonwealth v. Scott, and that he is entitled to a remand for reconsideration of his motion in accordance with the factors identified in that opinion. The Commonwealth commendably agrees. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the defendant's motion for new trial and remand the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with our memorandum and order.
To the extent that the defendant argues that we should order broader relief, such as a judgment of dismissal or an order for a new trial, we disagree.
So ordered.
By the Court (Kafker, Trainor & Milkey, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: November 10, 2014.