Opinion
14-P-1489
06-24-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. DELMA JEFFREY.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a bench trial on March 27, 2014, the defendant, Delma Jeffrey, was convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B(b). On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the conduct of the police violated her right to due process, and (2) her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. We affirm the defendant's conviction.
The defendant's appellate counsel disassociates herself from these two arguments in accordance with the procedure established in Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 208 (1981).
1. Due process claim. The defendant claims that during their investigation and her arrest, the police violated her right to due process via their racist comments, their limited investigation, and their call for back-up during the arrest. She points to the testimony of Officer Frank DeSimone, who stated that he knew the defendant, as evidence of a contentious history between the defendant and the police and therefore, police bias. However, the defendant did not raise this issue at trial, nor has she fully developed this claim on appeal. The call for back-up and the limited questioning of the defendant's sister are not evidence of due process violations. "We note that the defendant has failed to cite any authority in support of [her] argument, and the argument does not rise to the level of appellate argument cognizable by this court." Commonwealth v. Tracy, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 442 (2000). See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 428 Mass. 1603 (1999).
2. Ineffective assistance claim. The defendant's ineffective assistance claim fails for the same reason. In her brief, the defendant fails to identify the relevant standard, let alone meet the burden imposed by that standard. See Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974) (we consider "whether there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel -- behavior of counsel falling measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer -- and, if that is found, then, typically, whether it has likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence"). For the reasons stated in the Commonwealth's brief at pages five through nine, it is clear that the standard has not been met. The defendant's allegations of counsel's ineffectiveness are without merit.
C onclusion. For the above stated reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Berry, Kafker & Cohen, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
Clerk Entered: June 24, 2015.