Opinion
10-P-111
03-21-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. JOEL VASQUEZ.
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
The defendant, Joel Vasquez, seeks to withdraw his guilty pleas. The defendant was initially charged with several gun related offenses as well as assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. After the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi on one charge and the defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. The parties offered a joint sentencing recommendation.
The defendant basically argues that his motion to suppress should have been allowed, that the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient, and that counsel was ineffective.
We have reviewed the briefs and transcript and hold that substantially for the reasons cited by the Commonwealth in its brief, the arguments of the defendant must fail.
Of note, in the thorough colloquy conducted by the motion judge, who also ruled on the postjudgments motions, the defendant was specifically told of all of the rights he was relinquishing including the right to appeal an adverse ruling on his motion to suppress. The defendant acknowledged that he understood.
Orders denying motion to withdraw guilty pleas, to amend the motion, and for reconsideration affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Berry & Vuono, JJ.),