Opinion
11-P-242
01-12-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. MAXIMO SUERO.
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
Upon review of the briefs, record appendix, and transcript, nothing has been made to appear that would cause us to reverse either of the defendant's convictions. We discern no error in the manner in which the judge conducted the trial. The defendant's argument that one of the charges was duplicative of the other fails, as Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 429 Mass. 502, 509 (1999), controls this claim of error in material respects. Contrast Commonwealth v. Howze, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 152-153 (2003).
Accordingly, based substantially on the reasoning and authorities set out in the Commonwealth's brief, we affirm the judgments.
So ordered.
By the Court (Graham, Brown & Meade, JJ.),