Justice William Mead opened oral argument for Commonwealth v. Feliciano and reminded counsel of the 15‑minute limit before the panel (Massing and Bridal). Kevin Dimelo, representing Alexis Feliciano, told the court the appeal turns on appearances: the resentencing record ‘created the appearance that he was sentencing Mr. Feliciano for the attempted murder charge’ rather than the probation‑violation offense, and that appearance, he said, implicates double‑jeopardy concerns and the appearance of partiality.

Dimelo acknowledged the underlying crimes were not disputed but emphasized that comments the sentencing judge made on the record — including repeated references to how ‘shocking’ the conduct was — left an ‘uninterested observer’ with the impression the judge was revisiting a concluded attempted‑murder sentence. Dimelo cited appellate decisions, including White and Mills as discussed in his brief, to argue that a sentencing judge’s focus must be limited to the facts and law of the offense being sentenced and must avoid sending a deterrent message to the community.

A justice pressed whether the contested record could instead reflect only a misapplication of advisory guidelines rather than partiality. Dimelo replied the point is not the judge’s subjective state of mind but the outward appearance created by the transcript: ‘the judge must avoid the appearance of any type of partiality,’ he said.

Assistant District Attorney Sean Buxton urged the court to affirm. Buxton stressed the advisory nature of the guidelines and argued the judge reasonably could conclude the defendant had a serious record and impose the sentence at issue. He noted the judge retained a separate, more serious charge (home invasion) and therefore did not convert into advocacy for the Commonwealth.

The panel extensively questioned both sides about whether a sentencing judge may consider broader community deterrence, where advisory guidelines fit into the analysis, and whether errors in guideline calculations alone would make a sentence illegal. The court took the matter under advisement.