Commonwealth v. Ford

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Jonas

    689 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    In Jonas, we relied heavily on Dancy to hold that assault and battery on a corrections officer constitutes a “crime of violence” under the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, § 4B1.2(a)(1), a provision almost identical to the one that defines the term “violent felony” under ACCA. 689 F.3d at 87–89;see also United States v. Willings, 588 F.3d 56, 58 n. 2 (1st Cir.2009) (“[T]he terms ‘crime of violence’ under the career offender guidelines and ‘violent felony’ under the ACCA are nearly identical in meaning, so that decisions construing one term inform the construction of the other.”).

    Dancy, 640 F.3d at 468. It applies in exactly the same way to police officers, see Colon, 958 N.E.2d at 68, as to correctional officers, see Commonwealth v. Ford, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 556, 468 N.E.2d 663, 665 (1984). And even though the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not definitively set out the elements required for ABCO under section 13D, there is no principled basis for believing that the elements are any different than the elements set out for ABPO.

  2. Commonwealth v. Ford

    393 Mass. 1103 (Mass. 1985)

    February 27, 1985.Further appellate review granted: Reported below: 18 Mass. App. Ct. 556 (1984).

  3. Commonwealth v. Sollivan

    40 Mass. App. Ct. 284 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    The Commonwealth contends that, if we disagree with its interpretation of the statute, the cases should be remanded for sentencing on the lesser included offense of larceny. See Commonwealth v. Ford, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 556, 559 (1984) (where defendant was tried and convicted under the wrong statute, proper remedy was to remand for resentencing on lesser included offense). Larceny in a building is made up of the following elements: (1) the taking or carrying away of property (2) that belongs to another person (3) from a building (4) with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.

  4. Commonwealth v. Geary

    579 N.E.2d 172 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    We need not decide whether the issue the defendant sought to raise was properly raised by his motion for a new trial because we think it clear that the enhanced penalty statute applied. We base that determination on our construction of the language of the statute, compare Commonwealth v. Ford, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 556, 558 (1984), and one of its obvious purposes: to deter such assaults by persons who, because they are already serving sentences, would not be deterred by additional concurrent sentences. In accordance with G.L.c. 123A, § 2, as appearing in St. 1959, c. 615, the treatment center is a facility of the Department of Mental Health, but it is "at a correctional institution.