COMMONWEALTH v. SANTIAGO (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

In February 2019, pro se defendant William Santiago filed a motion in the Superior Court seeking a reconsideration of the 2009 denial of his motion to obtain a copy of the victim impact statement provided to the court following his 1993 criminal convictions. A judge of the Superior Court denied the motion, and he appeals from that denial. We affirm.

Background. The defendant pleaded guilty in 1993 to eight charges ² stemming from the harassment and rape of a student at Northeastern University.³ In 2002, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, which was denied. The denial was then affirmed by this court. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2006). He next filed in 2008 a motion to obtain a copy of the victim impact statement submitted prior to his sentencing, arguing that G. L. c. 279, § 4B, required that any victim impact statement be made available to the defendant.⁴ That motion was denied in January 2009. The defendant filed two motions to reconsider in February and March 2009; there is no entry on the trial court docket indicating that any action was taken on either of those motions. No further action was taken by the defendant until ten years later when, in February 2019, he filed an amended motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to obtain a copy of the victim impact statement. The amended motion was denied, and the defendant timely appealed from that denial.

Discussion. Here the defendant's motion is belied by language in the very statute he relies on for support. General Laws c. 279, § 4B, provides, in part: “No sentence shall be invalidated because of failure to comply with the provisions of this section. This section shall not be construed to create any cause of action or any right of appeal on behalf of any person.” Because the defendant has failed to ground his appeal in any legitimate right of action, we affirm the denial of his amended motion to reconsider. “[A]n appeal ‘not taken according to law is not rightly before us and cannot be considered.’ ” William Rodman & Sons, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 364 Mass. 557, 560 (1974), quoting Martin's Case, 231 Mass. 402, 404 (1918). “[T]he rules bind a pro se litigant as they bind other litigants.” Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985).

Order dated February 19, 2019, denying amended motion to reconsider, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The defendant pleaded guilty to: (1) kidnapping, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 26; (2) stalking, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (a); (3) violating a restraining order in violation of G. L. c. 209A, § 7; (4) stalking in violation of a restraining order, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (b); (5) assault and battery in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A; (6) threatening to commit a crime in violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2; (7) trespassing in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 120; and (8) rape in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b).

3.   The facts of the underlying case are summarized in Commonwealth v. Santiago, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2006).

4.   The defendant grounded his motion in the text of the Massachusetts statute addressing victim impact statements which states, in relevant part: “Before disposition, the court shall allow any victim who elects to make such an oral statement the opportunity to do so in the presence of the defendant. Before disposition, the district attorney shall file any such written statement with the court and shall make it available to the defendant.” G. L. c. 279, § 4B.