Opinion
13-P-1856
11-19-2014
COMMONWEALTH v. STANLEY WILLIAMS.
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
The defendant, Stanley Williams, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and to firearm offenses in April, 2005. In November, 2013, the defendant filed, pro se, a motion for forensic analysis pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3, a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for discovery, a motion for an evidentiary hearing, a motion for funds for a forensic expert, and a motion for funds for a private investigator. The judge, who was the same judge who had accepted the defendant's guilty pleas, denied the motions, noting that the motions were targeted to obtaining discovery that had previously been provided to the defendant or to obtaining funds for forensic testing and a pathologist to examine "virtually any item recovered during the police investigation." The judge observed that the defendant was attempting to cast a wide net in the hope that something would emerge that would enable him to withdraw his pleas and that there was no foundation to support the allowance of any of the motions. The defendant appeals.
The motion judge properly denied the motions. General Laws c. 278A, § 3, which permits access to forensic and scientific evidence after a defendant has been convicted of a crime, has quite specific requirements that must be met before a judge is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of such motions. Here, the defendant's broad motions did not meet the requirements of G. L. c. 278A, § 3. For the requirements, see the Commonwealth's brief at pages 6 and 7. See the Commonwealth's brief at pages 8 through 12 for a detailed explanation of the deficiencies in the motions. Furthermore, the defendant requested many items that were not the kind of items contemplated by the statute and were, essentially, redundant of provided discovery.
Orders denying November, 2013, motions affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Grainger & Maldonado, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: November 19, 2014.