Opinion
No. 11–P–2071.
2013-01-10
COMMONWEALTH v. Simon JEAN–LOUIS.
By the Court (VUONO, GRAINGER & WOLOHOJIAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant was tried before a jury for kidnapping in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 26, masked armed robbery in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 17, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15B( b ). Before a verdict was returned (but after the jury began deliberating), the defendant pleaded guilty to all three offenses. He now appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea and for a new trial, arguing that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
“A motion to withdraw a guilty plea ‘is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge, and the judge's disposition of the motion will not be reversed for abuse of discretion unless it is manifestly unjust, or unless the plea colloquy was infected with prejudicial constitutional error.’ “ Commonwealth v. Hunt, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 616, 619 (2009), quoting from Commonwealth v. Correa, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 714, 716 (1997). When a motion raises no substantial issues, a judge is well within his discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 Mass. 497, 504 (1992). Whether a motion and supporting materials raise a “substantial issue” turns not only on the seriousness of the issue itself, but also on the adequacy of the factual showing with respect to that issue. Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass. 341, 348 (2004). While a defendant's lack of competence to plead guilty is a serious issue, the question is “whether the motion and affidavits made an adequate showing with respect to that alleged lack of competence.” Ibid.
We see no abuse of discretion here. Indeed, there is little, if anything, to add to the motion judge's comprehensive and well-reasoned decision, which amply explains the many reasons why the defendant failed to show a substantial issue as to his competence on the date he tendered his plea. There was no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the defendant failed to show that he was unable to communicate and work with his attorney when he pleaded guilty. See id. at 353.
Orders denying motion for new trial and motion for reconsideration affirmed.