Opinion
14-P-1019
02-11-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. MANUEL RUIZ.
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
On May 9, 2011, after his jury trial had commenced, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape of a child, sixteen counts of indecent assault and battery of a child, and two counts of open and gross lewdness. Following an extensive colloquy with the defendant, the Superior Court judge accepted the defendant's guilty pleas and imposed sentence. Over one year later, the defendant moved, pro se, to withdraw his pleas and for a new trial. The plea judge denied those motions without a hearing, and the defendant has appealed. We affirm.
The defendant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, filed his motions after United States officials began deportation proceedings against him. He does not challenge the adequacy of the warnings provided to him regarding the immigration consequences of his convictions (and, in any event, the record shows he was warned that his convictions would result in deportation).
The defendant makes no challenge to the adequacy of the colloquy that occurred at the plea hearing. Instead, he asserts that he is in fact innocent, that there was no physical evidence proving the charges, and that this is simply "a fabricated case created by a family dispute and nothing more." According to him, his attorney was ineffective for pressuring him to plead guilty instead of continuing with the trial.
The defendant did not file a supporting affidavit from his plea counsel, and none of the affidavits that he filed explains the nature of any "pressure" that he claims counsel brought to bear. The fact that the defendant may have been under significant emotional stress at the time of the pleas is legally insufficient. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 385 Mass. 497, 506 (1982).
A guilty plea can be withdrawn only if "it appears that justice may not have been done." Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 387 Mass. 481, 487 (1982), quoting from Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b), 378 Mass. 900 (1979). In the face of an adequate plea colloquy, the defendant bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that he did not knowingly and voluntarily proffer the pleas. On appeal, we can reverse a judge's determination that a defendant failed to meet that burden only where the judge abused his discretion. Commonwealth v. Bowen, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 579, 583-584 (2005).
The standard is identical under the current Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).
Even putting aside the lack of substance in the defendant's affidavit, the motion judge was not required to credit the defendant's claims. Commonwealth v. Lopez, 426 Mass. 657, 663 (1998). The same is true of the affidavits filed by the defendant's wife and children in support of his motions. No evidentiary hearing on the motions was required where the defendant failed to raise a "substantial issue . . . supported by a substantial evidentiary showing." Ibid. (citation omitted). In sum, the defendant has not demonstrated that the judge abused his discretion in denying his motions to withdraw the guilty pleas and for a new trial.
In addition, these affidavits are in the nature of general attestations to the defendant's character, coupled with conclusory claims that the aunt of one of the victims (who also served as her caretaker) fabricated the allegations because the defendant stopped providing economic assistance to the household and that additional victims (cousins of the first victim) similarly made up their own allegations as part of a "conspiracy."
Orders denying motions to withdraw guilty pleas and for new trial affirmed.
By the Court (Grainger, Brown & Milkey, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: February 11, 2015.