Opinion
10-P-2241
03-29-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. DONALD S. PARTIN.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
On appeal, the defendant attacks the performance of his trial counsel. Passing the question whether the ineffective assistance claim should have been 'advanced in the context of a motion for a new trial,' Commonwealth v. McCormick, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 106, 107 (1990), it has not been made to appear on this record that the defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance within the framework of Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974). Moreover, of particular note, it has not been shown that 'better work might have accomplished something material for the defense,' Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977), nor that his trial counsel's strategy was manifestly unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Adams, 374 Mass. 722, 728 (1978).
The main thrust of trial counsel's defense was to create reasonable doubt. That defense was well thought out and adequately presented. We think that challenging the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence was an acceptable trial strategy. See Commonwealth v. Phetsaya, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 293, 300 (1996).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Berry, Brown & Grainger, JJ.),