Opinion
14-P-682
04-13-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. JOSHUA W. KINZLE.
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, Joshua Kinzle, appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate guilty pleas, contending the facts upon which the pleas were made do not constitute crimes as to two of the ten charges. We agree.
On March 25, 1996, the defendant pleaded guilty to ten charges arising from the same criminal episode. As is relevant here, these included indictments charging armed assault in a dwelling and home invasion. See G. L. c. 265, § 18A; G. L. c. 265, § 18C. The crux of his motion to vacate is that the facts recited by the Commonwealth at the plea colloquy did not establish that the defendant was armed when he entered the victim's home, a required element of both crimes. The defendant contends this deficiency requires the nullification of his pleas on those two indictments.
"A judge may not accept a guilty plea 'unless there are sufficient facts on the record to establish each element of the offense.'" Commonwealth v. Hart, 467 Mass. 322, 325 (2014) (citation omitted). The Commonwealth concedes, and we concur, that both convictions must be vacated.
The defendant and the Commonwealth suggest a remand for resentencing is the appropriate remedy. We agree. "A judge's sentencing scheme for a defendant convicted of multiple offenses at one trial is typically an integrated plan and not a mechanical formation of separate sanctions." Commonwealth v. Leggett, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 730, 735 (2012). Resentencing is appropriate to allow the plea judge to meet the objectives intended by his initial sentencing scheme.
The order denying the motion to vacate the guilty pleas is reversed. On the indictments for armed assault in a dwelling and home invasion, the judgments are vacated and the findings are set aside. The case is remanded for resentencing on the remaining indictments.
So ordered.
By the Court (Vuono, Milkey & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: April 13, 2015.