Opinion
No. 09–P–2123.
2013-02-7
COMMONWEALTH v. Clement A. AWEH.
By the Court (TRAINOR, BROWN & MILKEY, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Passing the question whether many or all the issues pressed on appeal have been properly preserved for review, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crawford, 430 Mass. 683, 689 (2000), we address the merits. Upon review of the briefs, record appendix, and transcript, and after oral argument, we discern nothing that would cause us either to reverse the judgments or the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.
As to the speedy trial issue, most of the four factors in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), have not been shown, particularly factors three and four. See id. at 531–533.
As to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it has not been shown that “better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.” Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977). In short, none of the motions or objections forwent by trial counsel would have been successful. Accordingly, based substantially on the motion judge's findings and the reasoning and authorities set out in the Commonwealth's well-crafted brief, we affirm the judgments and the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.
So ordered.