Opinion
14-P-813
04-15-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. ANTONIO JONES.
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, Antonio Jones, appeals from the order denying his motion to revise his order of commitment. The defendant argues on appeal that he is entitled to an additional twelve months and twenty-two days of sentence credit. We affirm.
Discussion. On March 7, 1996, a Suffolk County grand jury returned an eight-count indictment (docket number SUCR1996-10365) against the defendant: two counts of home invasion, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, two counts of making threats, and two counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The defendant was taken into custody on March 19, 1996, following his arraignment in the Superior Court.
On April 18, 1996, a Suffolk County grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant charging him with escape and assault and battery on a correction officer (docket number SUCR1996-10681). He was arraigned on August 27, 1996.
On September 23, 1996, the defendant was indicted on charges of armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and making threats (docket number SUCR1995-11367). He was arraigned on October 4, 1996.
On March 26, 1997, the defendant was found guilty of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and one count of making threats, all in docket number SUCR1996-10365. The defendant was sentenced the next day to serve no less than three and no more than four and one-half years in State prison on his conviction of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. As a result of his time spent in pretrial detention, the trial judge awarded the defendant 413 days of credit towards his sentence, accounting for the time the defendant was incarcerated awaiting trial on these charges. With the defendant's consent, his other two convictions were placed on file.
In his motion to revise the order of commitment for docket numbers SUCR1996-10681 and SUCR1995-11367, the defendant claims that he is entitled to an additional twelve months and twenty-two days of sentence credit. Specifically, he argues that he is entitled to seven months of credit on docket number SUCR1996-10681, from the day of his arraignment on August 27, 1996, to March 27, 1997, when he was sentenced on docket number SUCR1996-10365. In addition, he claims that he should receive five months and twenty-two days of credit on docket number SUCR1995-11367, for the time from his arraignment in that case on October 4, 1996, to March 27, 1997, when he was sentenced on docket number SUCR1996-10365. The motion judge denied the defendant's motion, remarking:
"Upon review of instant motion and jail credit claims set forth in defendant's memorandum, and comparing claims asserted with criminal docket on each of defendant's three cases, the defendant has not shown a right to further jail credits, nor any error in the orders of commitment. To the contrary, full jail credits were awarded in #96-10365. Thereafter, Judge Spurlock carefully structured sentences in two other cases (#96-10681 and #95-11367) which, by their terms, demonstrate that he was not awarding double credit for time held. Here, there is no issue of 'dead time.' Motion is therefore DENIED."
Massachusetts case law supports the judge's analysis. See Commonwealth v. Ridge, 470 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2015) ("Where, as here, the time previously credited to the defendant is 'wholly inclusive of the period the defendant claims as credit on' a later-imposed sentence, 'there is no special consideration of fairness that supports the credit that the defendant seeks'"), quoting from Commonwealth v. Barton, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 915 (2009). Contrast Commonwealth v. Velez, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 727, 730 (2014) (defendant entitled to credit where "the defendant actually and primarily was held on the . . . bail . . . set" for the crime for which he seeks credit [emphasis supplied]). Thus, there was no error.
The defendant was primarily held on docket number SUCR1996-10365 for which he received full sentencing credit.
Order denying motion to revise order of commitment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Kafker & Green, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: April 15, 2015.