Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title II Chapter 275
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, § 18 (2026)

Community parole supervision for life in addition to sentence of imprisonment or probation; covered offenses

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 18. Whenever a person is convicted of a first offense under section 13B, 13F or 13H of chapter 265 or for a first offense for the attempt of any of the aforementioned crimes under section 6 of chapter 274, the district attorney, upon motion to the court, may request a hearing after conviction and before sentencing, to determine whether or not such person shall be committed, in addition to any term of imprisonment or probation authorized by said sections, to community parole supervision for life, to be served under the jurisdiction of the parole board as set forth in section 133D of chapter 127. Whenever a person is convicted of a first offense under section 22, 22A, 23, 24, 24B or 26 of said chapter 265, section 3 or 35A of chapter 272 or for a first offense for the attempt of any of the aforementioned crimes under said section 6 of said chapter 274, the elements of which are mitigated by certain circumstances, the defendant, upon motion to the court, may request a hearing after conviction and before sentencing to determine whether or not such person shall receive, in addition to a term of imprisonment or probation authorized by such sections, community parole supervision for life, to be served under the jurisdiction of the parole board as set forth in said section 133D of said chapter 127.

At such hearing, the defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel, and, if financially unable to retain adequate representation, to have counsel appointed to him. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing and to present information. The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials shall not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing. A finding by the court that such person shall be committed to community parole supervision for life shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In making a determination the judge shall, on the basis of any information which he can reasonably obtain, consider any mitigating or aggravating circumstances including, but not limited to, the defendant's character, propensities, criminal record, the nature and seriousness of the danger posed to any person or the community and the nature and circumstances of the offense for which the defendant is convicted. If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasons for community parole supervision for life to be served under the jurisdiction of the parole board, as set forth in section 133D of chapter 127, exist, the judge shall not impose community supervision for life on such first offender.

Whenever a person is convicted of a first offense under section 22, 22A, 23, 24, 24B or 26 of chapter 265, or section 3 or 35A of chapter 272 or for a first attempt of any of the aforementioned crimes under the provisions of section 6 of chapter 274, the district attorney may file a motion with the sentencing judge requesting that the defendant not receive community parole supervision for life, and upon receipt of such motion, the sentencing judge shall not impose community parole supervision for life on such first offender.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Pagan, 834 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Pagan, 834 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 20× “265, § 45, and G. L. c. 275, § 18. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.”
Commonwealth v. Renderos, 799 N.E.2d 97 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 16× “See G. L. c. 275, § 18. The defendant, therefore, must be resentenced.”
Commonwealth v. Morris, 16 Mass. L. Rptr. 593 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 21× “265, §45, G.L.c. 275, §18, and G.L.c. 127, §133D. These statutes are reproduced in the Appendix to this decision.”
Commonwealth v. Pillai, 833 N.E.2d 1160 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 2× “265, § 45, and G. L. c. 275, § 18. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Williamson, 971 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “161 (2005), which sought to constrain this broad sentencing discretion by “confused and conflicting” references to a “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof, G. L. c. 275, § 18, third par., permits exercise of a judge’s general sentencing discretion.”
Coffin v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Treatment Ctr., 936 N.E.2d 418 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 4× “At the time the Commonwealth filed its petition for *187 commitment of the plaintiff as an SDP, he was incarcerated solely for violating the conditions of lifetime community parole imposed pursuant to a statute, G. L. c. 275, § 18, that we have declared to be facially…”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 10 N.E.3d 1081 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 2× “265, § 45; and G. L. c. 275, § 18, as interpreted by our decisions, dictate when a CPSL sentence may or must be imposed.”
Commonwealth v. Leggett, 978 N.E.2d 563 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “at 171-174 , that the CPSL statute under G. L. c. 275, § 18, was partially unconstitutional.”
Scione v. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Barnes, 114 N.E.3d 74 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “13 Given the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson and Dimaya, coupled with our vagueness jurisprudence, we conclude that the language in the residual clause of § 58A is unconstitutionally vague under art.”
Commonwealth v. Talbot, 830 N.E.2d 177 (Mass. 2005). “265, § 45, G. L. c. 275, § 18, and G. L. c. 127, § 133D, is not authorized by the statutes, which were enacted after the commission of the offenses for which she was convicted; and even if it is authorized under the statutes, this aspect of her sentence would violate State and…”
Commonwealth v. Cumming, 995 N.E.2d 1094 (Mass. 2013). “Thereafter, the Commonwealth moved that the defendant be resentenced on all of the indictments, and a hearing was scheduled.”
Commonwealth v. Kateley, 962 N.E.2d 747 (Mass. 2012). “161, 172-173 (2005), we held that G. L. c. 275, § 18, was unconstitutionally vague.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.