Opinion
14-P-972
03-07-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. WILLIAM RUSSELL.
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
We see no abuse of discretion in the order of the Superior Court denying the defendant's "motion to expunge probation time imposed, to be served after completion of state sentence" for substantially the reasons set forth in the Commonwealth's brief at pages nine to fifteen. To the extent the defendant's motion is properly viewed as a motion to revise and revoke his sentence, see Commonwealth v. Alers, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 946, 946-947 (1983), it was untimely. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 29(a), 378 Mass. 899 (1979). In any event, the defendant has furnished no valid basis for relief in support of his motion.
Alternatively, to the extent the defendant's motion is properly viewed as a motion to modify the terms of his probation, we discern no abuse of discretion by the motion judge. Finally, to the extent the defendant's motion sought to transfer his probation to Pennsylvania, there was no error in the denial of the motion because the judge was without authority to grant the requested relief.
The order denying the defendant's "motion to expunge probation time imposed, to be served after completion of state sentence" is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Green, Hanlon & Henry, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: March 7, 2016.