Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title II Chapter 278
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 28B (2026)

Right of appeal to appellate division; time limit; stay of execution of sentence; jurisdiction; review of judgment, etc.; disposition

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

Section 28B. A person aggrieved by a sentence which may be reviewed may appeal to the appellate division for a review of such sentence. Upon the imposition of a sentence which may be reviewed, the clerk of the court shall notify the person sentenced of his right to appeal. The appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the court for the county where the judgment was rendered within ten days after the imposition of said sentence. An appeal shall not stay the execution of a sentence. The clerk of the court shall notify the chief justice, the justice who imposed the sentence and the clerk of the appellate division of the filing of an appeal. The justice who imposed the sentence appealed from may transmit to the appellate division a statement of his reasons for imposing the sentence and shall make such a statement within seven days if requested to do so by the appellate division.

The appellate division shall have jurisdiction to consider an appeal with or without a hearing, review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed and also any other sentence imposed when the sentence appealed from was imposed, notwithstanding the partial execution of any such sentence, and shall have jurisdiction to amend the judgment by ordering substituted therefor a different appropriate sentence or sentences or any other disposition of the case which could have been made at the time of the imposition of the sentence or sentences under review, but no sentence shall be increased without giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard. If the appellate division decides that the original sentence or sentences should stand, it shall dismiss the appeal. Its decision shall be final. The clerk of the appellate division shall forthwith notify the appellant, the superintendent of the correctional institution in which the appellant is confined, the clerk of the court in which judgment was rendered, the justice who imposed the sentence appealed from and the chief justice of the final action of the appellate division on an appeal. The appellate division may require the production of any records, documents, exhibits or other things connected with the proceedings. The superior court shall by rule establish forms for appeals hereunder and may by rule make such other regulations of procedure relative thereto, consistent with law, as justice may require.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1962–2024 · leading case: Lena v. Commonwealth, 340 N.E.2d 884 (Mass. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lena v. Commonwealth, 340 N.E.2d 884 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 278, § 28B. It is not shown that the revised sentence was so far a departure from the expected penalty for such an offense, committed by such a defendant, as to suggest prejudice, or, indeed, that it was not better in line with sentencing practice in like cases than the…”
Murray v. Commonwealth, 852 N.E.2d 66 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 278, § 28B (“If the appellate division decides that the original sentence or sentences should stand, it shall dismiss the appeal”).”
Commonwealth v. Grimshaw, 590 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 2× “The defendant appealed from her sentence to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court which, in accordance with G.L.c. 278, § 28B (1990 ed.), has final authority for review of sentences, and, pursuant to that authority, dismissed her appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Barros, 955 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 278, § 28B. The Appellate Division modified one of Ms tMee sentences.”
Commonwealth v. Alves, 741 N.E.2d 473 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The defendant concedes that the maximum statutory sentence for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter is twenty years, and that his sentence was for less than the maximum. G. L. c. 265, § 13. The defendant unsuccessfully appealed his sentence to the Appellate Division of the…”
Commonwealth v. Callahan, 644 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1995). · cites it 4× “Moreover, the rule refers to an extension of the time limit for an appellate court order which affects a “judgment of conviction.” The Appellate Division of the Superior Court has authority to review a judgment only insofar as it relates to the sentence imposed.”
Commonwealth v. Bolduc, 378 N.E.2d 661 (Mass. 1978). “Bolduc requested a review of his sentences in an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court under G. L. c. 278, § 28B. The appeal was dismissed and it does not appear that any further appeal was taken at that time.”
Commonwealth v. Pagels, 870 N.E.2d 645 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “*619 The defendant appealed the sentence imposed on the intimidation charge to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 28B. After a hearing, the Appellate Division amended the original sentence of not less than four and not more than seven years…”
Shabazz v. Commonwealth, 439 N.E.2d 760 (Mass. 1982). “G. L. c. 278, § 28B. 3 There are suggestions that a reopening of such final and unappealed sentences to increase them would run afoul of the double jeopardy clause.”
Commonwealth v. Cepulonis, 400 N.E.2d 1299 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “With these facts, the motion judge could also have considered it important that the defendant had waited almost five years to raise the ineffectiveness claim, 8 that he continued to retain plea counsel to represent him on a petition to reduce the sentences heard several years…”
Pires v. Commonwealth, 370 N.E.2d 1365 (Mass. 1977). “See G. L. c. 278, § 28B. 3 Although no comparable rule was in effect at any time relevant to this proceeding, we note that a majority of the judges of the Superior Court recently adopted an amendment to Superior Court Rule 65, to take effect January 1,1978.”
Croteau, 234 N.E.2d 737 (Mass. 1968). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 278, § 28B. This practice was based on the belief that the propriety of the sentence imposed could best be determined by face-to-face confrontation with the prisoner, unaffected by advocacy for either side.”
Show all 31 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.