From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Hudson

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 11, 2012
11-P-1547 (Mass. Apr. 11, 2012)

Opinion

11-P-1547

04-11-2012

COMMONWEALTH v. MAC HUDSON.


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

On August 8, 2011, a single justice of this court denied Hudson's motion to stay his sentence and reinstate bail conditions. Hudson appeals, requesting that the matter be remanded for further consideration, or alternatively, that his motion be granted.

The Commonwealth incorrectly states that the single justice of the Appeals Court was Justice Kantrowitz; it was in fact Justice Katzmann who decided the motion at issue.

This matter began more than twenty years ago and has since had a long and complicated procedural history. Hudson was first convicted, by a jury in 1990, of murder in the second degree and other offenses. He appealed and we reversed his convictions, Commonwealth v. Hudson, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (1994). He was re-tried and convicted again in 1997. We affirmed those convictions in 2000. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2000). In 2001, Hudson filed a motion for a new trial, which was eventually denied by a judge of the Superior Court, and this court affirmed the denial. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2005).

Hudson then petitioned for rehearing, which we granted, and in 2005, we again ordered a new trial. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2005). As a result, a Superior Court judge stayed Hudson's sentence and ordered that he be released on bail. In May, 2006, after further appellate review was granted, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court judge's original decision denying Hudson's motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 446 Mass. 709, 728 (2006). The stay of his sentence was rescinded as a result. In 2009, Hudson's second motion for a new trial was denied, and he filed a timely appeal which is still pending.

Hudson filed his third motion for a new trial in July, 2010, and he subsequently filed a motion to reinstate the 2006 stay of his sentence. Hudson's motion to reinstate the stay was denied, and he appealed to the single justice of this court. The single justice denied Hudson's motion, holding that it was not ripe and was prematurely filed since the motion for a new trial is still pending in the Superior Court. Hudson appeals from the order of the single justice.

We agree with the reasoning of the single justice. Moreover, even were we to assume that the appeal was not premature, the record does not demonstrate that Hudson's claims had merit, and we affirm on that ground as well.

Order of the single justice affirmed.

By the Court (Kantrowitz, Wolohojian & Sullivan, JJ.),


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Hudson

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 11, 2012
11-P-1547 (Mass. Apr. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. MAC HUDSON.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Apr 11, 2012

Citations

11-P-1547 (Mass. Apr. 11, 2012)