From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Johnson

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Mar 31, 2016
15-P-230 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2016)

Opinion

15-P-230

03-31-2016

COMMONWEALTH v. STANLEY J. JOHNSON.


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

The defendant appeals from a judge's order that he would not consider the defendant's pro se motion for new trial where the defendant was represented by counsel. We affirm.

On January 7, 2015, the defendant filed a pro se motion for new trial. By that date, the defendant had been notified that he was not permitted to make pro se filings given that he was represented by counsel. Notice to that effect was given by the Superior Court on December 24, 2014. At the pertinent time, the defendant was represented by Attorney William A. Korman.

The judge committed no error of law, or other abuse of discretion, in refusing to consider the defendant's pro se motion for new trial on the ground that he was represented by counsel. A judge is not required to consider pro se filings made by a represented defendant. See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 807 (1985); Commonwealth v. Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 152-153 (1991); Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 448 Mass. 538, 543 (2007). Nor was the judge required to permit the defendant to proceed in hybridized fashion: partly pro se, and partly through counsel. See Molino, supra at 151.

The order entered January 26, 2015, on the defendant's pro se motion for new trial is accordingly affirmed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Wolohojian, Carhart & Kinder, JJ.),

The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------

/s/

Clerk Entered: March 31, 2016.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Johnson

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Mar 31, 2016
15-P-230 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. STANLEY J. JOHNSON.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Mar 31, 2016

Citations

15-P-230 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2016)