Commonwealth v. Goodwin
933 N.E.2d 925, 458 Mass. 11, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 643 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a probation violation, a judge may not modify probation to add a punitive condition like GPS monitoring unless there is a material change in the defendant's circumstances, and the new condition does not so significantly increase the severity of the sentence as to constitute a new, harsher punishment.
Facts:
- The defendant, Goodwin, kidnapped a seven-year-old boy by threatening to kill him.
- Goodwin took the victim to an area under a bridge and then to his parents' cellar, where he forced the victim to perform fellatio multiple times and attempted to sodomize him.
- Goodwin confined the victim in the cellar overnight.
- The next morning, Goodwin committed another act of fellatio, then placed the victim in a large cardboard box and sent him home in a taxicab.
- After serving his committed prison sentence, Goodwin was civilly committed in 2005 after being found to be a 'sexually dangerous person.'
- In June 2009, a jury found Goodwin was no longer sexually dangerous, leading to his release from the treatment center to begin serving the probationary term from his original 1990 sentence.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1990, Goodwin pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to charges of rape and kidnapping and was sentenced to prison followed by a suspended sentence with probation.
- The probation department sought to modify Goodwin's probation conditions after his release in 2009.
- A Superior Court judge granted some modifications, including no-contact orders, but denied the probation department's request to add GPS monitoring and geographic exclusion zones.
- The judge reasoned that she lacked legal authority because there was no change in circumstances and because adding a punitive condition would constitute an ex post facto punishment.
- The Commonwealth's motion for reconsideration was denied by the judge in a written order.
- The Commonwealth then sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, who reserved and reported the legal question to the full court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a judge have the authority to modify a defendant's probation by adding GPS monitoring and geographic exclusion zones as new conditions where the defendant has not violated probation, there has been no material change in circumstances, and the new conditions are punitive in effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Gants, J.
No. A judge does not have the authority to impose GPS monitoring as an additional condition of probation where there has been no probation violation, no material change in circumstances, and the new condition is so punitive that it significantly increases the severity of the original sentence. A judge's common law authority to modify probation for a compliant defendant is limited. Modifications that increase the burdens on a probationer require both a material change in circumstances and must not be so punitive as to amount to a new, harsher sentence. Adding a significantly more severe punishment after a sentence is final raises double jeopardy concerns by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense and undermines the finality of judgments. It is also contrary to the spirit of plea bargain rules, which entitle a defendant to rely on the finality of their bargained-for sentence. Here, there was no material change in Goodwin's circumstances, and the court's prior holding in Commonwealth v. Cory established that GPS monitoring is a 'substantial burden on liberty' and is 'punitive in effect,' thus significantly increasing the severity of the original probationary terms.
Dissenting - Ireland, J.
Yes. A judge should have the authority to impose a GPS monitoring device as a condition of probation because such a requirement is remedial rather than punitive. Referencing the dissent in Commonwealth v. Cory, the opinion asserts that the legislative intent behind GPS monitoring was to create a regulatory and public safety scheme, not to inflict punishment. As a remedial measure, it could be properly imposed as an additional term of probation without implicating double jeopardy or finality concerns.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical limitation on judicial authority to modify probation for compliant defendants, protecting the finality of sentences. It solidifies the principle that post-sentencing modifications cannot be used to impose new, harsher punishments disguised as probation conditions. By affirming that GPS monitoring is 'punitive in effect,' the court makes it significantly more difficult for the Commonwealth to add such conditions without a new triggering event like a probation violation. The decision strongly protects a defendant's legitimate expectation in the finality of their sentence, particularly in the context of plea bargains.
