Opinion
No. 10–P–1945.
2012-10-4
COMMONWEALTH v. Mark MARTONE.
By the Court (GRAINGER, BROWN & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant's second motion for a new trial was properly denied. Passing the question whether the defendant's claim was waived because it was not raised in his first motion for a new trial, we affirm the denial of the defendant's second motion on the basis that the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), pursuant to the reasoning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). See Commonwealth v. Melendez–Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239–240 (2011).
Accordingly, based substantially on the reasoning and authorities set out in the Commonwealth's brief, we affirm the order denying the defendant's second motion for a new trial.
So ordered.