Opinion
11-P-603
03-29-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. TED BODKIN.
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
Upon review of the briefs, record appendix, and transcript, we find no merit in the defendant's various claims of error. Nor do we discern any missteps on the part of the motion judge in denying the defendant's motion for new trial.
We can confidently conclude that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel fails, as it does not meet the second prong of the Saferian test, which requires a showing that 'better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.' Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).
Passing the question whether defense counsel was ineffective by failing to seek interlocutory review of the judge's denial of his motion to suppress, it has not been made to appear that there was a likelihood of success on the merits. Deciding as we do, we thus have no need to discuss the rationale for allowing an interlocutory appeal by the defendant in the circumstances presented here. See and compare Commonwealth v. Castillo, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 34, 37 & n.3 (2006).
Accordingly, the judge properly denied the defendant's motion for new trial.
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Brown & Fecteau, JJ.),