NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 21-P-1143 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JUNIAS JEAN-LOUIS. No. 21-P-1143. Middlesex. September 7, 2022. – March 2, 2023. Present: Neyman, Ditkoff, & Hershfang, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Admission to sufficient facts to warrant finding, Plea, Presumptions and burden of proof, Record. Alien. Complaints received and sworn to in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department on January 4, 1995, December 4, 1995, and December 18, 1995. A motion to withdraw admissions to sufficient facts and guilty pleas was heard by Richard A. Mori, J. Luke Rosseel for the defendant. Chia Chi Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. NEYMAN, J. The defendant, Junias Jean-Louis, claims that two District Court judges failed to provide any immigration warnings pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 29D, at two different plea hearings, and thus that his motion to withdraw his admissions to 2 sufficient facts and guilty pleas in three separate cases should have been allowed. In the circumstances of this case, where all three dockets reflect that the defendant was advised of his "immigration rights" and two of the three further reflect that he was advised of his "alien rights," we conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion. We therefore affirm. Background. 1. District Court admissions and guilty pleas. On January 4, 1995, a criminal complaint issued out of the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department, docket number 9552CR0045 (docket 0045), charging the defendant with one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and one count of larceny from a person. On June 9, 1995, the defendant admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty on both counts, and a District Court judge (first judge) continued the case without a finding for one year. Docket 0045 contains two separate stamped notations located in the "FINDING" box for each count that reflect, in relevant part, that the defendant was "advised of immigration rights."1 The docket further reflects 1 The two stamped notations read, in full, "Jury waived change of plea advised of immigration rights plea of guilty accepted by the court." However, the word "accepted" is crossed out. Adjacent to each stamp is the handwritten notation "REJ" next to the first judge's signature, signifying that the first judge rejected the proffered guilty plea and, instead, continued the case without a finding. 3 that the defendant subsequently violated the terms and conditions of the continuances without a finding, and, on January 29, 1996, a different judge (second judge, and collectively with first judge, plea judges) entered guilty findings on both counts and sentenced the defendant to a term of probation. On December 4, 1995, another …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals