Opinion
10-P-1266
12-13-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. GREGORY J. DOWLAND.
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
The defendant appeals from convictions for two counts of rape of child with force. He makes two contentions on appeal: that his motion for funds to hire a 'deliverance minister' was denied in error and that transcripts of pretrial proceedings involving his requests for the discharge of counsel have been altered. We affirm his convictions.
The 'motion' at issue was not included in the record appendix provided by the appellant. To the extent that his argument is read to allege error in the denial of a single motion that included a request for funds to hire a private investigator, we note that contemporaneous with the filing and denial of one motion, presumably to hire a 'deliverance minister,' was another motion for funds for an investigator that the docket reflects was allowed. We confine our review, therefore, to that concerning the deliverance minister.
We acknowledge the statement of appellate counsel that both of these claims are made pursuant to Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 208 (1981).
--------
As to the first contention, for substantially the reasons suggested by the Commonwealth in its brief, at pp. 7-8, since it has not been made to appear that the requested services were 'reasonably necessary to assure the applicant as effective a defense as he would have if he were financially able to pay,' denial of this motion was not error. See G. L. c. 261, § 27C; Commonwealth v. Souza, 397 Mass. 236, 240-241 (1986) ('The test is not whether an item 'might conceivably contribute some assistance to the defense,' nor whether such an item 'would be acquired by a defendant who had unlimited resources,' but whether the item is 'reasonably necessary to prevent [the defendant] from being subjected to a disadvantage in preparing or presenting his case adequately, in comparison with one who could afford to pay for the preparation which the case reasonably requires'').
As to the defendant's second contention, since it is unsupported by proper argument and appropriate record citation to applicable authority which is the appellant's responsibility to provide, error has not been made to appear. See Mass.R.App.P. 16(a)(4), 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Fecteau & Carhart, JJ.),