Appeals court revisits 'special circumstances' standard in plea-withdrawal dispute

The appeals court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Lopes about whether a lower court properly held an evidentiary hearing on remand to determine whether the defendant had "special circumstances" that made it rational to refuse a plea offer. Counsel debated the effect of an earlier appeals-panel decision and whether the remand and hearing were consistent with that opinion.

Assistant District Attorney (Plymouth County) argued the appeals panel already had decided the legal question and that the trial judge erred in holding a second evidentiary hearing. "The appeals court panel ... said given everything that we have about this case ... he doesn't have special circumstances," the prosecutor told the court, arguing the evidentiary hearing was unnecessary and the judge should have followed the panel's legal conclusions.

Defense counsel Patrick Noonan said the remand was intended to determine what the defendant's circumstances were at the time of the plea and to evaluate the totality of circumstances (including whether there was a substantial ground for defense, family dependency, and the defendant's education and work history). Noonan urged that the judge credited testimony that the defendant supported family members, drove an elderly grandmother to appointments, and had education and work ties that made it rational to risk trial rather than accept deportation.

The panel and counsel debated the appropriate standard for remand and the meaning of "dependency" and "special circumstances." The Commonwealth urged deference to the earlier panel and that the judge's findings were not clearly erroneous; defense counsel said the motion judge credited testimony and that the totality of circumstances could make rejection of a plea rational for a noncitizen facing possible deportation. The justices questioned whether issues raised for the first time on appeal could be considered and discussed whether the substantial-ground-for-defense claim (tied to a possible motion to suppress) was properly before the court.

The court submitted the case after argument; the appeal centers on whether the remand and evidentiary hearing complied with the prior panel's mandate and whether the motion judge abused discretion or made clear-error factual findings on dependency and rationality of rejecting a plea.