Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COMMONWEALTH v. Frank L. STANLEY, Jr.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In 2013, after his trial had begun, the defendant pleaded guilty to a host of charges pertaining to the patterned sexual abuse of four boys.2 The defendant later filed a motion for a new trial, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas, that was denied by the trial judge in a substantive, thoughtful opinion. A motion for reconsideration was also denied by the same judge. Before us now is the consolidated appeal from both orders, whereby the defendant repeats his claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing, and that his counsel's assistance was ineffective.3
A motion for a new trial is the appropriate mechanism to challenge the validity of guilty pleas. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001); Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 344 (2014). The judge's denial here is afforded “[p]articular deference” because he presided over the trial; we review the ruling for a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion. Scott, supra. Here, the defendant's appellate brief is copied almost word-for-word from his initial motion for a new trial and fails entirely to address or cite to the judge's underlying memorandum of decision or order denying that motion. He continues to rely on his own self-serving affidavit despite its express rejection by the judge. He fails to address the applicable standard of review and makes no assertion of judicial error, even in the face of the judge's strong language rejecting his claims.4 Because he did not advance a proper appellate argument, we need not consider it.5 See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975) (“The appellate court need not pass upon questions or issues not argued in the brief”).6
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
Order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2. The defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of rape of a child, four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, one count of indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen years of age or over, one count of unnatural and lascivious acts with a child, three counts of dissemination of matter harmful to a child, and three counts of posing and exhibiting a child in the nude.
3. The defendant asserts, as he did below, that “trial counsel's coercion and ineffective assistance, combined with the effect of [the defendant's] medications, rendered his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing; [and that] trial counsel's failure to alert the court that [the defendant] was incorrectly answering the judge's questions during the plea colloquy constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.” The judge concluded that the defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the decision to plead guilty was anything other than the product of his own free will; that the defendant's thinking and judgment were not impaired on the date of the plea colloquy; and that the defendant did not establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In reaching those conclusions, the judge discredited the defendant's affidavit, calling some of the claims contained therein “patently incredible.” The judge further determined that the defendant's other claims and arguments were either belied or uncorroborated by the record, or were unpersuasive.
4. For example, the judge referred to some of the defendant's claims and arguments as “strain[ing] credulity,” “utterly devoid of merit,” and “rank speculation.”
5. The defendant's appeal from the order denying his motion for reconsideration is deemed waived based upon the failure to present any issue or argument regarding the ruling.
6. We cite to the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure in effect during the relevant time period. The rules were wholly revised, effective March 1, 2019, primarily for stylistic and organizational purposes. See Mass. R. A. P. 1, Reporter's Notes -- 2019. The provision quoted above is now found at Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1630 (2019).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 18-P-1597
Decided: October 24, 2019
Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)