Commonwealth v. Grant

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Mass. 667 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a defendant collaterally attacks a long-final guilty plea after the contemporaneous record has been lost due to the defendant's delay, a presumption of regularity applies. The defendant bears the initial burden of producing sufficient credible and reliable evidence to rebut this presumption before the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to prove the plea's validity.

Facts:

Between 1976 and 1985, the defendant, Lopez, represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to various state crimes on four separate occasions and was sentenced.
Lopez served all sentences for these state convictions.
In 1995, Lopez was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on federal narcotics charges.
During his federal sentencing, Lopez's prior Massachusetts state convictions were used to enhance his sentence under federal law.

Procedural Posture:

On September 7, 1995, the defendant, Lopez, filed four motions in Massachusetts Superior Court to withdraw his guilty pleas from 1976, 1979, 1982, and 1985.
Lopez supported his motions with affidavits claiming he had no recollection of being advised of the consequences of his pleas.
The Commonwealth presented evidence that the records of the 1976, 1979, and 1982 pleas had been destroyed pursuant to court rules, and that the judges and court reporters were deceased.
A judge in the Superior Court (a trial court of general jurisdiction) denied the defendant's motions without an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant appealed the denial.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court) transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court to itself on its own motion.

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 defendant seeking to withdraw a long-final guilty plea, where the contemporaneous record has been lost due to the defendant's delay, have the initial burden of presenting credible evidence that the plea was constitutionally defective before the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to prove its validity?

Opinions:

Majority - Greaney, J.

Yes. A defendant who challenges a long-final guilty plea after the record has been lost due to the defendant's own delay must first present credible evidence showing the plea was constitutionally defective before the burden shifts to the Commonwealth. The court reasoned that the usual rule placing the burden on the Commonwealth to prove a plea's validity assumes the record is available or easily reconstructible. When a defendant's long delay causes the record to be lost (e.g., through routine destruction of court records), the delay is the defendant's fault. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Parke v. Raley, the court applied a 'presumption of regularity' to final judgments. A defendant's self-serving affidavit claiming a lack of recollection is insufficient to overcome this presumption. To trigger an evidentiary hearing and shift the burden to the Commonwealth, the defendant must produce credible and reliable factual evidence indicating the plea proceedings were constitutionally defective. This approach upholds the finality of judgments and discourages defendants from challenging old pleas only when facing new adverse consequences, like sentence enhancement.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a significant procedural hurdle for defendants collaterally attacking old guilty pleas in Massachusetts, particularly in the context of sentence enhancement. By shifting the initial burden of proof to the defendant when records are lost due to delay, the court prioritizes the finality of judgments over the usual rule from Boykin v. Alabama that presumes a plea is invalid without an affirmative record. This makes it substantially more difficult to challenge old convictions, as defendants must now produce more than their own 'credulity straining' testimony to even warrant a hearing. The ruling aligns Massachusetts law with the federal approach in Parke v. Raley, creating a uniform standard that protects long-settled convictions from belated attacks motivated by subsequent legal trouble.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Grant (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"