Opinion
11-P-1154
03-02-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. MARCO ROMAN.
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
Defendant Marco Roman was charged with eight counts of rape of a child with force, G. L. c. 265, § 22A (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11); five counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13B (counts 3, 6, 9, 12, 14); and one count of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13H (count 13).
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the judge allowed the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty on counts 2, 3, 12, 14, and, to so much as alleged force, on count 10. After the defendant rested, the motion for a required finding of not guilty was allowed on count 6. The jury returned guilty verdicts on the remaining charges.
The judgments were affirmed by this court in an unpublished decision pursuant to our rule 1:28 on May 16, 2011, and the Supreme Judicial Court denied further appellate review, 459 Mass. 1111 (2011). On June 14, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful restraint pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(a), 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), on the G. L. c. 265, § 22A, charges and a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b) on the G. L. c. 265, §§ 13B and 13H charges. The defendant appeals the denial of those motions.
We agree with the Commonwealth that the motion judge, who was also the trial judge, properly denied the defendant's motions since there was evidence to support each of the counts that was presented to the jury for consideration, the defendant was appropriately sentenced under the statutes for each conviction, and the defendant cannot show that justice was not done. We rely upon the arguments and authorities on pages ten through twenty-one of the Commonwealth's brief.
Orders denying motions for relief from unlawful restraint and for a new trial affirmed.
By the Court (Berry, Kafker & Mills, JJ.),