Commonwealth v. Charles Longe. ( 2024 )

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-1247
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
CHARLES LONGE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
In 1983, the defendant was found guilty of assault and
battery with a dangerous weapon in the Brockton Division of the
District Court Department. On April 6, 2023, nearly forty years
later, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea
and for a new trial. 1 By this appeal, the defendant challenges
the judge's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing before
denying both that motion and a motion to reconsider. 2 We affirm.
1In the defendant's affidavit in support of the motion, he
states that he believed that he admitted sufficient facts to the
charge but not that he pleaded guilty.
2Although not raised by the parties, the defendant's appeal
from the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea
was not timely filed because he did not file a notice of appeal
or motion to reconsider within thirty days. See Mass. R. A. P.
4 (b) (1), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019). See also
In support of his motion for a new trial, the defendant
filed an affidavit claiming that (1) he admitted to sufficient
facts because he thought he "would receive a continuance without
a finding" and the charge would be dismissed on the successful
completion of his probationary term; (2) he does "not recall
being informed of the elements of the crime [he] was being
charged with," nor that his "permanent record would reflect a
felony conviction"; and (3) his plea "was not made knowingly,
intelligently or voluntarily." There is no affidavit from his
plea counsel. The trial court's recording of the defendant's
plea hearing does not exist. The judge denied the motion
without a hearing, ruling that the "[d]efendant has not overcome
the presumption of regularity," citing Commonwealth v. Lopez,
426 Mass. 657 (1998).
The defendant then moved for reconsideration, offering the
affidavit of a disinterested attorney with fifty years of
experience who had "witnessed the evolution of plea colloquies
in the district and superior courts of the Commonwealth." The
attorney averred that he had represented clients in Brockton
District Court during the 1980s, and although he "cannot speak
Mass. R. A. P. 4 (b) (3), as appearing in 489 Mass. 1601 (2022).
Nonetheless, the appeal from the order denying the motion to
reconsider is properly before us. In the interests of judicial
economy, we exercise our discretion to address the substance of
the parties' arguments as they are fully briefed. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290, 294 (1991).
2
specifically to this case, . . . plea colloquies were often
times more relaxed during that period of time." Citing the
substantial delay in the defendant's challenge to the plea, the
judge denied the motion for reconsideration, again without a
hearing.
"The issue on appeal is whether the motion judge abused his
considerable discretion when, without first conducting an
evidentiary hearing, he denied the defendant's motion for a new
trial." Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass. 341, 341 (2004).
"To sustain an appellate claim that a judge committed an abuse
of discretion, it must be demonstrated that 'no conscientious
judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view
expressed by him.'" Id. at 348, quoting Commonwealth v. Ira I.,
439 Mass. 805, 809 (2003).
"A postsentence motion to withdraw a plea is treated as a
motion for a new trial." Commonwealth v. Berrios, 447 Mass.
701, 708 (2006), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 907 (2007), quoting
Commonwealth v. Conaghan, 433 Mass. 105, 106 (2000). A motion
for a new trial may be granted "if it appears that justice may
not have been done." Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in
435 Mass. 1501 (2001). "The judge may rule on the issue or
issues presented by such motion on the basis of the facts
alleged in the affidavits without further hearing if no
substantial issue is raised by the motion or affidavits."
3
Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (3), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501(2001). "Although the motions and supporting materials filed by
a defendant need not prove the issue raised therein, they must
at least contain sufficient credible information to cast doubt
on the issue." Commonwealth v. Denis, 442 Mass. 617, 629
(2004). "A judge may also consider whether holding a hearing
will add anything to the information that has been presented in
the motion and affidavits." Goodreau, 442 Mass. at 348.
"A defendant's self-serving affidavits and assertions are
not sufficient, on their own, to raise a substantial issue"
(quotation omitted). Denis, 442 Mass. at 633. See Goodreau,
442 Mass. at 354. The only other evidence before the court was
in the attorney affidavit -- a brief, general statement about
practices over the course of a decade, with no evidence specific
to the defendant, the judge before whom he tendered his plea, or
the case. We discern no error in the judge's conclusion that an
evidentiary hearing was not required. See Goodreau, supra at
348-355. Contrast Commonwealth v. Colon, 439 Mass. 519, 525-526
(2003) (presumption of regularity rebutted where defendant
submitted six randomly selected recordings of inadequate plea
colloquies from years at issue, disinterested affidavits
addressed plea judge's practice of holding deficient plea
colloquies, and recording of defendant's plea colloquy
consistent with other recordings and affidavits).
4
Order denying motion to
reconsider affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Hershfang & Toone, JJ. 3),
Clerk
Entered: October 21, 2024.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
5