From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sayles v. Commonwealth

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Sep 28, 1977
367 N.E.2d 833 (Mass. 1977)

Summary

In Sayles v. Commonwealth, 373 Mass. 856, 856 (1977), G.L.c. 278, § 10, which punished the unlawful carrying of a firearm, had been amended after the plaintiff's first offense to impose a lengthened sentence upon conviction of a second offense.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Groden

Opinion

September 28, 1977.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Wallace W. Sherwood for the plaintiff.

Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, Stephen R. Delinsky, Barbara A.H. Smith John P. Corbett, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth.


A single justice of this court correctly allowed the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of error and entered a judgment accordingly. The plaintiff was convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a firearm in 1972 and pleaded guilty to the further allegation in the indictment that the offense was a second or subsequent offense. See G.L.c. 278, § 11A. Although the allegations of the petition, prepared pro se, are obscure, it seems to be agreed that the plaintiff had been convicted in 1961 of unlawfully carrying a firearm in violation of G.L.c. 269, § 10. During the time between the plaintiff's two offenses, G.L.c. 269, § 10, was amended to require a greater sentence for a second offense than § 10 required in 1961. See G.L.c. 269, § 10, as amended through St. 1971, c. 456, §§ 5 and 6, and St. 1972, c. 312, § 5, for the statutory provisions in effect during 1972 and, for earlier provisions, G.L.c. 269, § 10, as amended through St. 1957, c. 688, § 23.

1. The plaintiff claims that the imposition of a sentence for a second offense based on § 10 as amended subsequent to his conviction of the first offense is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law. The claim is meritless. Commonwealth v. Graves, 155 Mass. 163, 164-165 (1892). Ross's Case, 2 Pick. 165, 169-170 (1824). Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 559-560 (1967). Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 623-624 (1912). McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311, 312-313 (1901). Price v. Allgood, 369 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1966). The statutory change required the imposition of a greater penalty for any relevant future crime. In its application here, § 10 does not involve a greater or second penalty for the earlier offense.

2. The plaintiff further claims he was advised neither of his right to a jury trial nor that a consequence of his guilty plea was a mandatory five year sentence "without parole." This question need not be considered on a writ of error and may be presented in the Superior Court by a motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Penrose, 363 Mass. 677, 680-681 (1973). Earl v. Commonwealth, 356 Mass. 181, 183 (1969).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Sayles v. Commonwealth

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Sep 28, 1977
367 N.E.2d 833 (Mass. 1977)

In Sayles v. Commonwealth, 373 Mass. 856, 856 (1977), G.L.c. 278, § 10, which punished the unlawful carrying of a firearm, had been amended after the plaintiff's first offense to impose a lengthened sentence upon conviction of a second offense.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Groden
Case details for

Sayles v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SAYLES vs. COMMONWEALTH

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Sep 28, 1977

Citations

367 N.E.2d 833 (Mass. 1977)
373 Mass. 856

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Stewart

We find nothing in the affidavits or circumstantial evidence, taken alone or together, to warrant disturbing…

Commonwealth v. Porter

Earl v. Commonwealth, 356 Mass. 181, 183 (1969). Sayles v. Commonwealth, 373 Mass. 856 (1977). Commonwealth…