Opinion
22-P-590
12-16-2022
COMMONWEALTH v. Arquelio G. CAJIGAS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
In 2007, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. More than fourteen years later, on January 20, 2022, the defendant filed a motion for new trial, contending that the Commonwealth failed to adequately investigate the misconduct of Sonja Farak, a former drug lab chemist at the State Police Laboratory at Amherst (Amherst lab). After a nonevidentiary hearing, the motion was denied. On appeal, the defendant argues that because the drugs at issue were tested at the Amherst lab during the time that Farak was employed there, he is entitled to a new trial. He also argues that the "global remedy" prescribed by the Supreme Judicial Court (Court) in Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Attorney Gen., 480 Mass. 700 (2018) (CPCS ), did not adequately address the Commonwealth's failure to investigate the extent of Farak's misconduct and therefore all convictions that rest in part on drug evidence tested during Farak's tenure must be vacated. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the motion judge's thoughtful memorandum of decision, we affirm.
The defendant was indicted on each count as a subsequent offender; the pleas were to lesser included offenses.
"A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is treated as a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001)." Commonwealth v. Furr, 454 Mass. 101, 106 (2009). The disposition of such a motion is "committed to the sound discretion of the judge," whose "findings of fact are to be accepted if supported by the evidence." Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 344 (2014).
Upon questioning at oral argument, counsel for the defendant conceded that he did not have standing to raise a challenge on behalf of all defendants whose convictions rested in part on drug evidence tested during Farak's tenure. He also conceded that the Appeals Court -- in contrast to the Supreme Judicial Court -- does not have superintendency powers.
The facts are not disputed. Farak was a chemist at the Amherst lab from 2004 to 2013. The drugs at issue were tested on May 3, 2006, at the Amherst lab, by assistant analyst Rebecca Pontes. In 2013, Farak was indicted for, and eventually pleaded guilty to, multiple offenses based on her misconduct in, among other things, tampering with drug evidence. In 2018, the Court decided CPCS, in which it devised a global remedy for defendants affected by Farak's misconduct. The Court defined three classes of "Farak defendants" whose convictions warranted vacatur and dismissal: (1) those for whom Farak signed certificates of analysis, (2) those whose convictions were based on methamphetamine tested while Farak worked at the Amherst lab, and (3) defendants whose convictions were based on drugs tested by any chemist at the Amherst lab between January 1, 2009, and January 18, 2013. See CPCS, 480 Mass. at 734-735. By the plain terms of CPCS and the uncontested facts in this case (the heroin and cocaine were tested at the Amherst lab in 2006 by Pontes), the defendant is not a "Farak defendant." Accordingly, the judge properly denied his request for a new trial.
In the alternative, the defendant argues that the cutoff date of January 1, 2009, for vacatur of cases involving chemists from the Amherst lab other than Farak, was decided by the Court on a "constitutionally infirm record." Accordingly, he asks us to "extend" the CPCS holding and requests vacatur of all convictions stemming from drug samples tested at the Amherst lab during Farak's tenure. The Court considered this exact request in CPCS, 480 Mass. at 725-726, and rejected it. To the extent that the defendant argues that his request is to expand the holding of CPCS rather than a request to overrule it, we are without authority to do so. See Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485-486 (2003), and cases cited. See also Commonwealth v. Belliveau, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 830, 837 n.1 (2010) (Sikora, J., concurring) (Appeals Court has "renounced any authority to alter, overrule, or decline to follow governing precedents of the Supreme Judicial Court").
Order entered June 16, 2022, denying motion for new trial affirmed.