Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantmotionburden of prooflease
defendanttrialaffidavitmotionlease

Related Cases

Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568
View Case »
Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033
View Case »
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
U.S. ex rel. Potts v. Chrans, 700 F.Supp. 1505, 14 Fed.R.Serv.3d 491
View Case »
Blackman v. United States Cas. Co., 9 Cates 578, 117 Tenn. 578, 103 S.W. 784
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Commonwealth v. Mosher, 103 Mass.App.Ct. 1105, 219 N.E.3d 261 (Table), 2023 WL 5563268

Facts

The defendant sought release from his sentence for assault and battery on a household member, citing health risks posed by incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic. He filed a motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), arguing that the conditions of his confinement were unconstitutional. The motion judge denied the request, stating that the defendant's claims were unsupported by medical evidence and that the judge did not have the authority to grant such relief under the circumstances.

The defendant submitted affidavits from his counsel, two epidemiologists, and three medical doctors, in addition to a letter from a third epidemiologist.

Issue

Did the motion judge have the authority to grant the defendant's motion for release under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), and was the defendant's sentence cruel and unusual punishment in light of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Did the motion judge have the authority to order his release under rule 30(a), which provides: 'Any person who is imprisoned or whose liberty is restrained pursuant to a criminal conviction may at any time, as of right, file a written motion requesting the trial judge to release him or her or to correct the sentence then being served upon the ground that the confinement or restraint was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' (emphasis added).

Rule

Motions under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) are reserved for circumstances where the sentence was illegal at the time it was imposed. The Eighth Amendment and art. 26 require that conditions of confinement do not create an unreasonable risk of future harm to inmate health and safety.

Motions under rule 30(a) are reserved for circumstances in which the sentence was illegal at the time it was imposed.

Analysis

The court found that the defendant's argument regarding the motion judge's authority was misplaced, as the judge's discretion was limited to cases where the sentence was illegal at the time of imposition. The court also noted that the defendant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his claim of increased risk due to COVID-19, and thus, the judge was not required to credit his assertions. The burden was on the defendant to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief, which he did not do.

The defendant has not argued that his sentence was imposed illegally, but, rather, that the newly emergent, fact-specific conditions of his confinement render that confinement unconstitutional. Assuming without deciding that the defendant's constitutional argument has merit, the proper vehicle for such a claim would be an original action asserting that claim.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the motion judge's denial of the defendant's request for release, concluding that there was no error in the judge's decision.

Order dated April 7, 2020, denying motion for release affirmed.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case because the court found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof required to justify his release under the circumstances.

You must be