Appeals Court Probes Whether Subsequent‑offender Proceeding Was a Plea or a Trial in Commonwealth v. Vincent
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Counsel disputed whether the subsequent‑offender portion of Patrick Vincent’s case functioned as a trial or an inadequate plea colloquy and whether Brook Lane qualified as a public way; the panel pressed parties on preservation, docket entries, and Lattimore public‑way factors.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court took extended argument Dec. 11 in Commonwealth v. Vincent over two linked questions: whether Brook Lane is a 'public way' under settled tests, and whether the subsequent‑offender portion of the record amounted to an inadequately documented plea or a trial that the court may decide on the existing record.
Defense counsel Joseph Schneiderman focused his opening on the objective indicia of a public way, arguing Brook Lane lacked paving, municipal maintenance, and public amenities that courts have deemed important. He urged the panel not to accept Route 8 as a newly raised theory on appeal and contended that the Commonwealth’s case relied on speculation rather than admissible proof.
Schneiderman also argued the later colloquy concerning waiver of a jury and proceeding under sentence failed to establish that Mr. Vincent knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived rights attendant to a subsequent‑offender proceeding. He said this type of adequacy question is typically developed in a motion for a new trial or motion to withdraw a plea and that remand to the trial court may be required.
The Commonwealth’s Laurie Levinson said the record shows the judge repeatedly treated the matter as a trial, that counsel and the defendant indicated an intent to proceed under sentence in open court, and that photographs and testimony (including a trial judge’s finding that Route 8 is a public way) supported the public‑way determination. Levinson conceded the proceeding was confusing at times but argued the inquiry should focus on whether there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Panel questions centered on how to treat an ambiguous docket entry that refers to a waiver of trial and a finding of guilt and whether the court can decide voluntariness of a plea colloquy in the first instance or must remand for a trial‑court determination. The justices also pressed counsel on Lattimore and related precedents for what objective facts are required to show a way is open to the public.
The panel thanked counsel and submitted the case for decision.