Velazquez v. Commonwealth ( 2023 )

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-13345
CHAYANNE VELAZQUEZ vs. COMMONWEALTH.
Suffolk. January 6, 2023. - February 9, 2023.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt,
& Georges, JJ.
Pretrial Detention. Time. Statute, Construction.
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for
the county of Suffolk on April 19, 2022.
Following transfer to the Appeals Court, the case was heard
by Eric Neyman, J., and the case was reported by him to a panel
of that court.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for
direct appellate review.
Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for
the Commonwealth.
Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for
the petitioner.
LOWY, J. "General Laws c. 276, § 58B, provides that where
a person on pretrial release has violated a condition of that
release, . . . the release may be revoked and the person may be
2
subject to pretrial detention." Commonwealth v. Lougee, 485
Mass. 70, 79-80 (2020). This case requires us to determine
whether the presumptive time limit on pretrial detention
outlined in § 58B is calculated from when an individual is first
detained or from when an order of detention formally issues. We
conclude that the presumptive time limit must be calculated from
the date a person is detained regardless of when a formal order
of detention issues.
Background and prior proceedings. While facing various
charges in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) and the Superior
Court in Middlesex County (Middlesex Superior Court), the
petitioner, Chayanne Velazquez (defendant), was released on
bail. On December 26, 2021, while on release, the defendant
allegedly committed an assault and battery on a family or
household member, and he was arraigned on February 2, 2022, in
the Lynn Division of the District Court Department (Lynn
District Court). The Commonwealth filed two motions in the Lynn
District Court. The first sought pretrial detention pursuant to
G. L. c. 276, § 58A, in the Lynn District Court case, and the
second, pursuant to § 58B, sought to revoke the defendant's bail
in the cases pending in the BMC and the Middlesex Superior
Court. The arraignment judge made a determination of probable
cause under G. L. c. 276, § 58A, and ordered that the defendant
be held without bail pending resolution of the Commonwealth's
3
motions. The motions were scheduled to be heard on February 4,
2022.
On the scheduled hearing date, the court house was closed
due to inclement weather, and the hearing was ultimately held on
February 8, 2022. At that time, the judge ordered the defendant
held for 120 days pursuant to § 58A, until June 8, 2022, and for
ninety days pursuant to § 58B, until May 9, 2022. The May 9,
2022, date was communicated to both the BMC and the Middlesex
Superior Court; the Middlesex Superior Court entered the
detention under § 58B on its docket for "a period of [ninety]
days as of 2022 FEB 2."1
On April 7, 2022, the Lynn District Court charge was
dismissed. The defendant then filed a motion to reconsider the
bail revocation order, which was denied. Defense counsel asked
that the docket be corrected to reflect that the defendant's
ninety days of detention, pursuant to § 58B, began to run on the
date of arraignment rather than the date that the formal order
issued. The judge denied this request.
1 "The ninety-day revocation period under § 58B . . .
includes excusable delay under Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 (b) (2)[,
378 Mass. 909 (1979)], which means that the period of pretrial
detention can extend well beyond ninety days." Josh J. v.
Commonwealth, 478 Mass. 716, 723 n.8 (2018). Neither the judge
below nor the parties raised the issue of excusable delay under
Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 (b) (2).
4
The defendant filed a petition in the county court for
extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. A single
justice of this court transferred the matter to a single justice
of the Appeals Court.2 The single justice of the Appeals Court
granted the defendant's request for relief and also reported the
case to a panel of that court. We allowed the defendant's
application for direct appellate review.
Discussion. "To determine the proper application of . . .
[§] 58B, we apply the well-established principles of statutory
construction." Josh J. v. Commonwealth, 478 Mass. 716, 719
(2018). "Our fundamental aim is to 'discern and effectuate the
intent of the Legislature.'" Id., quoting Commonwealth v.
Morgan, 476 Mass. 768, 777 (2017). "To that end, '[t]he
language of the statute is the primary source of insight into
the intent of the Legislature.'" Josh. J., supra, quoting
Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. 298, 300 (2007).
"Therefore, where the statute is clear and unambiguous, our
inquiry into the Legislature's intent need go no further than
the statute's plain and ordinary meaning." Josh J., supra. But
"[w]here the draftsmanship of a statute is faulty or lacks
precision, it is our duty to give the statute a reasonable
construction." Commonwealth v. Pagan, 445 Mass. 315, 319
2 See Order Regarding Transfer of Certain Single Justice
Matters During the COVID-19 Pandemic, No. OE-144 (June 8, 2020).
5
(2005), quoting Capone v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Fitchburg,
389 Mass. 617, 622 (1983).
Pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 58B, "a defendant's release may
be revoked where, after hearing, a judge makes two findings:
(1) that there is probable cause to believe that a person on
pretrial release has committed a new crime while on release, or
clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any
other condition of release; and (2) that 'there are no
conditions of release that will reasonably assure the person
will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the
community' or 'the person is unlikely to abide by any condition
or combination of conditions of release'" (citation omitted).
Lougee, 485 Mass. at 80.
Section 58B sets forth two different time limitations
related to the bail revocation. The first concerns
continuances. The statute provides that "[u]pon the person's
first appearance . . . for revocation of an order of release
under this section," the revocation hearing must be held
immediately unless the person or the Commonwealth seeks a
continuance. G. L. c. 276, § 58B. If the person is detained
without bail during the continuance period, the continuance
period cannot exceed three business days on the Commonwealth's
motion and cannot exceed seven days on the person's motion. Id.
6
The second time limitation, which is at issue in this case,
is the final sentence of the statute. The sentence states, "A
person detained under this subsection, shall be brought to trial
as soon as reasonably possible, but in the absence of good
cause, a person so held shall not be detained for a period
exceeding ninety days excluding any period of delay as defined
in [Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 (b) (2), 378 Mass. 909 (1979)]." Id.The Commonwealth claims that the statute's ninety-day time
limit begins to run when a formal order issues.3 The defendant
asserts that the time period must begin to run when a person is
initially detained. We conclude that the ninety-day limit must
be calculated from the date a person is detained regardless of
when the formal order of detention is issued.
"The right of an individual to be free from physical
restraint is a paradigmatic fundamental right" (citation
omitted). Mushwaalakbar v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 627, 633
3 To support its position, the Commonwealth argues that
there are two separate and distinct periods of detention
contemplated by § 58B -- (1) detention during a period of
continuance and (2) detention after a formal order has entered -
- and that the different detention periods arise only in a
situation where a continuance is requested. Relying primarily
on Millican, 449 Mass. at 301, where we explained that the words
"section" and "subsection" cannot be used interchangeably, the
Commonwealth contends that because the statute refers to "[a]
person detained under this subsection" in reference to the
ninety-day detention period, the Legislature did not intend for
the ninety-day detention period to apply to the entirety of ways
or time periods that a person can be detained under the statute.
We do not agree, for the reasons discussed infra.
7
(2021). It is a right that "is firmly embedded in the history
of Anglo-American law." Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667,
676 (1993). "Pretrial detention schemes[, such as the one
outlined in § 58B,] necessarily balance the liberty interest of
individuals presumed innocent against public safety concerns
posed by high-risk defendants." Mushwaalakbar, supra, quoting
Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees, 245
N.J. 218, 231 (2021). Our conclusion that the clock starts
running as soon as a person is detained maintains the required
balance and is in keeping with the well-established principles
that pretrial detention "is constitutional precisely because it
is 'temporary and provisional' and 'the trial itself provides an
inevitable end point to the State's preventive authority.'"
Mushwaalakbar, supra at 632, quoting Mendonza v. Commonwealth,
423 Mass. 771, 781, 790 (1996).
Moreover, our holding is equally consistent with our
previous analysis of this very sentence in Lougee, 485 Mass. at
76-77, 79-80.4 In that case, we clearly explained that "by
stating . . . that persons held in pretrial detention 'shall be
brought to trial as soon as reasonably possible,' the
4 We recognize that in Lougee, 485 Mass. at 76-77, our
analysis focused on a sentence in G. L. c. 276, § 58A (3).
However, we stated that "[e]xcept for the shorter, ninety-day
time limit" the sentence at issue in this case is "virtually
identical" and, as a result, that analysis "is therefore equally
applicable to § 58B." Id. at 80.
8
Legislature declared its intent that pretrial detainees be given
priority when there is a queue of criminal cases awaiting trial"
and that "this sentence sets a presumptive time limit for such
cases to be brought to trial -- [ninety days]" (emphasis added;
citation omitted). Id. at 76. Thus, where § 58B is applicable,
the ninety-day clock begins to run at the time that a person is
detained and his or her liberty is curtailed irrespective of
when the formal order is issued. Any other interpretation would
be antithetical to the statute's presumptive time limit on when
the case will be "brought to trial" and the Legislature's intent
that priority be given to cases where § 58B has been invoked.5
Id. Cf. Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24, 40 (2010)
("Pretrial detention under § 58A was intended to be short lived,
ending on the conclusion of a speedy trial").
Conclusion. For the reasons discussed supra, we hold that
the presumptive ninety-day time limit on pretrial detention
outlined in G. L. c. 276, § 58B, begins to run at the time an
5Moreover, "where the language of a criminal statute
plausibly can be found ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires
that the defendant receive the benefit of the ambiguity."
Commonwealth v. Dayton, 477 Mass. 224, 226 (2017). "We
recognize that [§ 58B] is not a 'criminal' statute in the sense
of enumerating the elements of a particular crime. However, it
applies only where someone has been charged with a crime, and it
opens the door to a potentially severe curtailment of a
defendant's liberty . . . . Therefore, the rule of lenity
applies" and further supports our conclusion. Id. at 226 n.2.
See Lougee, 485 Mass. at 79-80.
9
individual is detained, regardless of whether a formal order of
detention has entered. We therefore affirm the order of the
Appeals Court single justice allowing the defendant's petition
for extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.
So ordered.