From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Sullivan

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Nov 4, 2016
63 N.E.3d 64 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)

Opinion

No. 16–P–908.

11-04-2016

COMMONWEALTH v. Mark SULLIVAN.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Mark Sullivan, appeals from the order denying his motion to correct the mittimus. He contends that the mittimus failed to credit him for 691 days he served while awaiting trial. At the time of sentencing, the trial judge noted on the record that “the court orders any and all time awaiting disposition to be deemed to have been served.” The trial judge having retired, a different judge denied the defendant's motion to correct the mittimus to provide credit for the 691 days served. The Commonwealth commendably concedes that the intent of the trial judge was to give the defendant the credit that he is seeking. Commonwealth v. Bruzzese, 437 Mass. 606, 613–614(2002). We agree. Accordingly, the order denying the motion to correct the mittimus is vacated and a new order shall enter allowing the motion.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Sullivan

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Nov 4, 2016
63 N.E.3d 64 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Sullivan

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. Mark SULLIVAN.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Nov 4, 2016

Citations

63 N.E.3d 64 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)
90 Mass. App. Ct. 1114