Commonwealth v. Gomes
Annotate this CaseSix years after his convictions were affirmed and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, Defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence, alleging that the trial judge perceived Defendant's trial testimony as perjurious and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence. A different judge denied the motion, as the trial judge had retired. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentences and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the trial judge erred by considering Defendant's testimony in imposing sentence, and because sentencing was thus improper, Defendant must be resentenced.
SJC-11278.
May 8, 2013.
Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Comment by judge. Judge.
Ethan C. Stiles for the defendant.
Roger L. Michel, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Six years after his convictions were affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 1111 (2004), and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 66 Mass.App.Ct. 1111 (2006), the defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence. See Mass. R.Crim. P. 30(a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). The motion alleged that the trial judge perceived the defendant's trial testimony as perjurious, and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence. The judge stated during sentencing, "I was also--I'm also affected by the testimony of the defendant himself who told a story that was really not believable at all." The motion was denied by a different judge, as the trial judge had retired. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial in a decision pursuant to its rule 1:28. See Commonwealth v. Gomes, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 1122 (2012). We granted the defendant's application for further appellate review.
Our common law forbids a judge from considering a defendant's perceived perjured trial testimony in determining the punishment imposed for a criminal conviction. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 806-808 (1984). Consideration at sentencing of such testimony is error that creates a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, even where the sentence imposed does not exceed the prosecutor's recommendation, as here. Id. at 810.
The trial judge did not merely discredit the defendant's testimony, she implied that it was perjured and she acknowledged that it "affected" her. We infer that the judge considered the defendant's testimony in imposing sentence. Because sentencing was improper, the defendant must be resentenced.
The defendant's sentences are hereby vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
So ordered.
END OF DOCUMENT
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
