However, a judge may take into account a disparity among the sentences of codefendants. Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 13, 522 N.E.2d 436 (1988). The Commonwealth contends that the judge abused her discretion in allowing the defendant's motion for two reasons.

We review the disposition of a motion to revise or revoke a sentence for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Malick, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 174, 185 (2014), citing Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 13 (1988). Though the power to revise or revoke is "severely limited," Commonwealth v. Jackson, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 528, 533 (2011), a judge may revise or revoke a sentence if it appears that "justice may not have been done."

Aldoupolis v. Commonwealth, 386 Mass. 260, 269, 435 N.E.2d 330, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 864, 103 S.Ct. 142, 74 L.Ed.2d 120 (1982). See Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 12, 522 N.E.2d 436 (1988). On the one hand, the rule governs reductions of sentences motivated by demands of fairness “where a conscientious judge, after reflection or upon receipt of new probation reports or other information, will feel that he has been too harsh or has failed to give due weight to mitigating factors which properly he should have taken into account.”

If Sarantakis is resentenced to a longer term, he could raise the revocation issue on appeal from that decision. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 522 N.E.2d 436 (1988) (sentence previously imposed on guilty plea revoked on judge's motion; defendant resentenced to longer prison term). Sarantakis offers no reason why this approach would not provide an adequate opportunity to obtain appellate review of the decision revoking his original sentence.

Id. at 796-797. In such circumstances, the court said, "it would be arbitrary to say the judge could have considered the coventurer's sentence if it had been imposed before the defendant's sentence, but find error in her consideration of the sentence solely because it was issued after the defendant's sentence," Id. at 797, since a judge may consider a disparity among codefendants' sentences when ruling on a defendant's rule 29 motion where the codefendant has been sentenced at the same time as, or before, the defendant, see Commonwealthv.Perry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 13 (1988). The defendant in Tejeda raised the issue of disparate sentencing in a timely filed rule 29 motion.

When reviewing a judge's decision on a motion to revise and revoke a sentence, our review is for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Malick, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 174, 185 (2014), citing Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 13 (1988). Here, other than the aforementioned Hyatt argument, the defendant raises no claim that any such abuse occurred.

Discussion. A decision denying a motion to revise and revoke is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Malick, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 174, 185 (2014), citing Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 13 (1988). A judge may revise and revoke a sentence if it appears that justice may not have been done.

The standard of review of the disposition of a motion to revise or revoke is abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 13, 522 N.E.2d 436 (1988). In this instance, multiple grounds defeat the appeal from the denials of the motions.

Compare Commonwealth v. McCulloch, 450 Mass. 483, 487, 879 N.E.2d 685 (2008), quoting from District Attorney for the N. Dist. v. Superior Ct., 342 Mass. 119, 128, 172 N.E.2d 245 (1961) (“Occasions inevitably will occur where a conscientious judge, after reflection or upon receipt of new probation reports or other information, will feel that he has been too harsh or has failed to give due weight to mitigating factors which properly he should have taken into account. In such cases the interests of justice and sound judicial administration will be served by permitting the trial judge to reduce the sentence within a reasonable time”), with Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 12, 522 N.E.2d 436 (1988) (Smith, J.) (“It is well settled that a sentencing judge has the authority under rule 29 [a] to increase a sentence previously imposed, provided that the revision takes place within sixty days of the imposition of the original sentence”), and Commonwealth v. Carver, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 378, 390, 600 N.E.2d 588 (1992) (judge can increase severity of sentence if it appears justice may not have been done), and cases cited. The authority of a sentencing judge under rule 29(a) “is consistent with the general responsibility of a judge to safeguard both the rights of the accused and the interest of the public in the due administration of the law.”

On this record, it does not appear that the defendant's request for the court to revoke his sentence is based on factors in existence at the time the original sentence was imposed. See Commonwealth v. Derry, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 12 n. 3, 13 (1988). The defendant has not asserted any ground that would justify any relief. The order denying the motion to revise and revoke the defendant's sentence is affirmed.