Opinion
11-P-1429
03-29-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. DAVID M. COHEN.
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, the record appendix, and other material of record before us, we cannot reasonably conclude that in the circumstances presented here the single justice abused his discretion or otherwise committed an error. See Commonwealth v. Allen, 378 Mass. 489, 496-498 (1979); Commonwealth v. Levin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 501, 505 (1979).
Passing the question whether the defendant may have been able to establish a 'reasonable likelihood of success' on appeal, but see Commonwealth v. (No.1), 456 Mass. 94, 125-126 (2010), we think the single justice could properly within the discretion afforded him deny the defendant's request for relief based on the permissible premise of the defendant's 'likelihood [to engage in] further criminal acts during the pendency of the appeal.' Commonwealth v. Hodge (No. 1), 380 Mass. 851, 855 (1980).
Order denying motion to stay probation affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Brown & Fecteau, JJ.),