The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument Oct. 2 in Commonwealth v. Carlos A. Bastos concerning a dispute over pretrial jail credit and whether credit applied in one county can later be assigned to a separate county sentence. Assistant District Attorney Sean Buxton argued for the Commonwealth that once a sentence attains finality the sentencing court in a different county lacked authority to reallocate jail credit years later.

Buxton told the court the issue implicates finality and procedural limits: the Commonwealth argued there was "no basis under the Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure or under the jail credit statute" for reopening a decade-old sentence to shift credit and that "no banking of jail credits" is permitted. The prosecutor said allowing such reallocation would undermine finality and could let defendants "make [their] sentence illegal in another county by taking some action to make sure a credit's not applied."

Defense counsel Edward Fogarty, representing the defendant, countered that at the time of the earlier pleas the defendant made placement decisions about where to apply credit based on a reasonable prediction of how long each sentence would run; when one county's sentence was later shortened on appeal, the defendant claimed it became equitable to apply excess credit to the other sentence. Fogarty argued the defendant was seeking a fair application of credit where sentence math changed.

The panel and counsel discussed case law including Ridge and Murphy, and whether the proper remedy when credit accrues and cannot be used in the original county is application to another open case or resentencing. The Commonwealth emphasized the 60-day Rule 29 window for sentencing challenges and contended that absent an illegality or clerical error the original sentencing judge loses authority after finality. The defense described policy and practical scenarios in which credit must be applied to avoid an unjust result.

Justices questioned hypothetical scenarios the parties raised, including whether a conviction later vacated would create surplus credit and where that credit should be applied. The court also explored whether the motion judge had discretion and whether precedent allowed discretion to award credit even where the sentence was not illegal.

After extended colloquy and multiple hypotheticals, counsel rested and the case was submitted. The court will decide how the prison-jail-credit rules and finality principles apply when separate-county sentences and later resentencing interact.