Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kercheval v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012A defendant’s entitlement to challenge a conviction obtained through a guilty plea is reflected in 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.” 4 A guilty plea is “an admission of the facts charged and ‘is its | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Arriagagreen2 sentences2009In turn, the existence of a “substantial issue” depends on “the seriousness of the issue and the adequacy of the defendant’s] showing.” Commonwealth v. Arriaga, supra. When considering whether there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, the showing must include something that would permit a reasoned conclusion that the alleged error, in the context of the entire trial, “materially influenced the verdict.” Randolph, 438 Mass. at 298 . 2009The lack of any focus on consequences has a direct bearing on the defendant’s entitlement to a hearing, for decided cases require a hearing on a motion for a new trial only when the motion and accompanying affidavits raise a “substantial issue.” See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stewart, 383 Mass. 253, 260 (1981); Commonwealth v. Arriaga, 438 Mass. 556, 571 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2009The lack of any focus on consequences has a direct bearing on the defendant’s entitlement to a hearing, for decided cases require a hearing on a motion for a new trial only when the motion and accompanying affidavits raise a “substantial issue.” See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stewart, 383 Mass. 253, 260 (1981); Commonwealth v. Arriaga, 438 Mass. 556, 571 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Mancuso v. Mancusogreen1 sentence1998The final judgment of divorce ultimately entered in the action, which was a precondition to the husband’s entitlement to our hearing his appeal, see Mancuso v. Mancuso, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 395, 398-402 (1980), was not included in the record appendix, contrary to Mass.R.A.P. 18(a), as amended, 378 Mass. 940 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Forsythred1 sentence1997Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 530 (1985) (“the entitlement is an immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to liability”). | 1 | 1 |
Behrens v. Pelletiergreen1 sentence1997See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 311-312 (1996) (successive pretrial claims of immunity are appealable). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2023But see Vasquez, 462 Mass. at 833 (duress "is not available to a person who recklessly puts himself in a position where coercion probably will be applied"). 3 First, without any detail about the substance of the threats, the jury had no basis on which to determine whether the threatened harm met the "imminence requirement" under our law by showing that the harm was "near at hand" or "menacingly near." Commonwealth v. Perl, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 445, 448-449 (2000) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Perlgreen1 sentence2023But see Vasquez, 462 Mass. at 833 (duress "is not available to a person who recklessly puts himself in a position where coercion probably will be applied"). 3 First, without any detail about the substance of the threats, the jury had no basis on which to determine whether the threatened harm met the "imminence requirement" under our law by showing that the harm was "near at hand" or "menacingly near." Commonwealth v. Perl, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 445, 448-449 (2000) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Broce
green
1 sentence2012Moreover, even if the rule of relinquishment in Broce were controlling precedent, it would not foreclose the collateral review sought by the defendant here, because the Supreme Court declared an exception to its rule “where on the face of the rec ord the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” Broce, supra at 569 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth v. Clark
green
1 sentence2012Where we have declared as a matter of State procedural common law that a guilty plea does not relinquish a defendant’s entitlement to challenge a conviction on double jeopardy grounds, see Commonwealth v. Clark, supra, a Federal rule of relinquishment has no consequence to collateral review of a guilty plea in a Massachusetts court and may not override our declaration of a different procedural rule. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kuklis v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2012A defendant’s entitlement to challenge a conviction obtained through a guilty plea is reflected in 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.” 4 A guilty plea is “an admission of the facts charged and ‘is its | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth v. Randolph
green
1 sentence2009In turn, the existence of a “substantial issue” depends on “the seriousness of the issue and the adequacy of the defendant’s] showing.” Commonwealth v. Arriaga, supra. When considering whether there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, the showing must include something that would permit a reasoned conclusion that the alleged error, in the context of the entire trial, “materially influenced the verdict.” Randolph, 438 Mass. at 298 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Licata
green
1 sentence2007The factors governing the entitlement to a hearing are the “seriousness of the issue” raised and the “adequacy of the defendant’s showing on that issue.” Commonwealth v. Denis, supra. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises “ ‘an issue of constitutional importance’ that readily qualifies as a serious issue.” Id. at 629 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Licata, supra at 661 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Denis
green
2 sentences2007The factors governing the entitlement to a hearing are the “seriousness of the issue” raised and the “adequacy of the defendant’s showing on that issue.” Commonwealth v. Denis, supra. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises “ ‘an issue of constitutional importance’ that readily qualifies as a serious issue.” Id. at 629 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Licata, supra at 661 . 2007The factors governing the entitlement to a hearing are the “seriousness of the issue” raised and the “adequacy of the defendant’s showing on that issue.” Commonwealth v. Denis, supra. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises “ ‘an issue of constitutional importance’ that readily qualifies as a serious issue.” Id. at 629 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Licata, supra at 661 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.