Opinion
11-P-1613
04-25-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. AURELIO PINERO, JR.
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
The defendant, Aurelio Pinero, Jr., appeals from an order of the single justice denying his motion to enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial as well as from the order denying his motion for reconsideration of that ruling. The single justice ruled that the defendant had not shown good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal and also denied the motion for reconsideration. See Mass.R.A.P. 14(b), as amended, 378 Mass. 939 (1979). We review these determinations for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Barboza, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 180, 183 (2007), and cases cited.
The single justice assessed the rights of the defendant at stake. See Commonwealth v. White, 429 Mass. 258, 264 (1999). He concluded that the defendant did or could have raised the issues now raised in his motion for a new trial motion on direct appeal. See Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 107 (1989). The single justice did not abuse his discretion.
Orders of the single justice affirmed.
By the Court (Berry, Kafker & Meade, JJ.),