Opinion
13-P-1693
03-25-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. THOMAS TRIPP.
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
After a jury trial had begun in 1999 on seventeen counts of an indictment, the defendant, Thomas Tripp, pleaded guilty to fifteen counts involving attacks on seven different women, and the Commonwealth entered nolle prosequis on the remaining two counts. The defendant previously has filed three motions for new trial, all of which have been denied, and two of which received appellate review. The defendant now appeals from the order denying his "motion to establish factual innocence," fashioning it under G. L. c. 278A, seeking to vacate his convictions. A Superior Court judge treated the filing as a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). We do not consider any of the issues the defendant raised in this motion that were not raised before prior motion judges. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Berthold, 441 Mass. 183, 186 n.4 (2004). The defendant's characterization of the facts underlying his current motion is inaccurate. Furthermore, to the extent the defendant raises issues that had been raised earlier, those arguments appear to have been rejected. See the reasons set forth in the Commonwealth's brief at pages 7 through 8. The judge here appropriately treated the defendant's motion as a motion for new trial and appropriately did not report questions to the Appeals Court or the Supreme Judicial Court.
Order entered October 2, 2013, affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Kantrowitz & Carhart, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: March 25, 2015.