 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. McCravy2/14/2000
ook into account the consequences of the defendant's conduct. It suggests that the judge properly could consider the possibility that the jury may have determined that the defendant's actions were not the proximate cause of Archibald's death, but did contribute to it.
The sentence imposed by the judge concerned only the defendant's conviction for operating negligently to endanger. The maximum sentence for a first offense is a term of imprisonment of two years. G. L. c. 90, Sect. 24 (2) (a). The defendant was sentenced to a term of one year in a house of correction, with six months to serve and the balance suspended. The sentence is well within the permissible statutory limit. See id. It is not within our power to review a lawful sentence. Commonwealth v. D'Amour, 428 Mass. 725, 746 (1999). Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659, 683 (1998). That authority is delegated to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. G. L. c. 278, Sect. 28A-28C. Where it appears, however, that a defendant was sentenced for a crime other than that for which he was convicted, it is within our power to review the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 804 (1984). See also Commonwealth v. Woodward, supra at 684 n.40. The defendant argues that the difference between motor vehicle homicide while operating recklessly or negligently (a crime of which the defendant was acquitted) and negligently or recklessly operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the safety of the public (a crime of which the defendant was convicted) is the causation of death. Compare G. L. c. 90, Sect. 24G (a), with G. L. c. 90, Sect. 24 (2) (a). The judge stated that probation was the "normal" sentence in a case of the latter. The judge had earlier said that "the person who was operating the motor vehicle so as to endanger the lives and safety of the public responsible for the fatality," and that, based on the defendant's driving record and Archibald's death, there was "no alternative" but to sentence the defendant to a term of incarceration. It appears to us from these statements that the judge may have sentenced the defendant more harshly than he otherwise would have because he believed the defendant's actions caused the death of Daniel Archibald.
In order to clarify whether the judge sentenced the defendant more severely because he held him responsible for Archibald's death, we remand the case to the Superior Court for resentencing solely on the charge of which the defendant was convicted.
So ordered.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|