Commonwealth v. Steve S.

227 N.E.3d 284

103 Mass.App.Ct. 691

COMMONWEALTH

v.STEVE S., a juvenile.

No. 21-P-1113

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued October 5, 2023

Decided January 19, 2024

Delinquent Child. Juvenile Court, Delinquent child. Practice, Criminal, Juvenile delinquency proceeding, Sentence, Retroactivity of judicial holding, Presumptions and burden of proof. Retroactivity of Judicial Holding.

Complaint received and sworn to in the Essex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on February 4, 2021.

The case was heard by Kerry A. Ahern, J., and a motion to continue sentencing was heard by her.

Caroline I. Alpert, for the juvenile.

Emily R. Mello, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Wolohojian, Desmond, & Sacks, JJ.

WOLOHOJIAN, J.

₆₉₁Approximately one month before his eighteenth birthday, the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for having committed assault and battery on a family or household member ₆₉₂in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a). At the end of the trial, the Commonwealth moved to continue sentencing until after the juvenile turned eighteen. The Juvenile Court judge allowed the motion after an evidentiary hearing. She did so on the ground that the juvenile’s desperate need of aid, encouragement, and guidance could not be satisfied in the limited time before he turned eighteen, and that it was in the juvenile’s best interest to postpone sentencing so that he could obtain services necessary for his rehabilitation. The juvenile has appealed.

While the appeal has been pending, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Noah N. v. Commonwealth, 489 Mass. 498, 184 N.E.3d 784 (2022) (Noah N.), in which it held that a judge is permitted to allow a continuance beyond a juvenile’s eighteenth birthday for the sole purpose of extending the time of commitment, but only after the judge conducts an evidentiary hearing and makes express findings to the effect that the continuance is necessary to ensure the rehabilitation of the juvenile. Id. at 502- 503, 184 N.E.3d 784. The court placed the burden on the Commonwealth to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued commitment is necessary to ensure the juvenile’s rehabilitation. Id. at 503, 184 N.E.3d 784.

[1] The juvenile argues that Noah N. announced a new rule that should not apply retroactively to him. In the alternative, the juvenile argues that the requirements of Noah N. were not satisfied in this case. Further, relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (Apprendi), the juvenile argues that the framework established in Noah N. violates his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution because it permits a judge to extend a sentence merely upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence, instead of reserving that determination to a jury upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the juvenile argues that his due process rights were violated because the delay in sentencing gave the Commonwealth a "tactical advantage." We affirm the adjudication of delinquency and the order allowing the motion to continue.¹

Background. On February 4, 2021, approximately four months before the juvenile was to turn eighteen, he was charged with ₆₉₃assault and battery on a family or household member, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a). The juvenile and his counsel pursued a strategy to have the charge tried before he turned eighteen to attempt to prevent the judge from sentencing him beyond that age. See G. L. c. 119, § 58. To that end, believing that a bench trial was likely to be scheduled sooner than a jury trial, the juvenile waived his right to a jury trial.

As the juvenile and his counsel hoped, the case was tried over two days approximately one month before the juvenile’s eighteenth birthday. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge adjudged the juvenile delinquent. The juvenile does not challenge the adjudication of delinquency on appeal on evidentiary grounds, and we now recite the facts underlying the adjudication as the judge found them.²

In 2018, the juvenile -- six feet, two inches tall and weighing 210 pounds -- and the victim -- four feet, eleven inches tall and weighing 118 pounds -- began an intimate relationship. The victim ended the relationship around January 2021, after she discovered that the juvenile had been cheating. The following month, on February 3, 2021, the victim went to the juvenile’s home to talk. After a conversation lasting around fifteen to twenty minutes, the victim said she wanted to go home. The juvenile grabbed her arm to prevent her from leaving and threw her onto his bed. When the victim again attempted to leave and repeated that she wished to go home, the juvenile struck her, causing her to fall back onto the bed. The juvenile then repeatedly punched, slapped, and spit at the victim, who went into a fetal position, covering her face with her arms. Despite the victim’s request that he stop, the juvenile continued to beat her while atop her and said, "[S]hut the fuck up bitch." Even- tually, the juvenile stood up and told the victim, "I fucking love you, don’t you fucking get it." When the victim then attempted to leave, the juvenile again called her a "bitch," punched her in the back of the head, and caused her to fall to her knees. He then grabbed the victim by the hair and dragged her through the bedroom. Eventually, the victim was able to leave the juvenile’s room and called 911.³ Officers responded quickly and found the victim crying, with visible scratches on her ₆₉₄hand and both sides of her neck. The victim was taken to a hospital where she was treated for approximately three hours. At the time of the trial, she continued to suffer long-term injuries from the assault and was attending ongoing physical therapy twice a week for injury to her spine and for pain while sitting or walking.

The juvenile moved for immediate sentencing as soon as the judge adjudged the juvenile delinquent at the conclusion of the trial. The Commonwealth moved to stay sentencing until after the juvenile’s eighteenth birthday, a request the juvenile opposed. At the beginning of the ensuing evidentiary hearing, before she allowed extensive argument from counsel, the judge stated that she was inclined to allow the motion and explained her reasoning as follows:

"So when I think about what transpired here -- this was a horrific beating that transpired involving an intimate partner of his -- the goals of the juvenile court are to make sure that [the juvenile] receives the treatment necessary in order to make sure that he has the services in place, that he gains insight as to what transpired here, to make sure that he goes on into adulthood he has the capacity, understanding, and ability to control himself and to engage in a safe and appropriate relationship with individuals of the opposite sex.

"So I can’t imagine that in three weeks, which I think is his -- his birthday is mid-June -- that that’s going to be accomplished by sentencing him for a three-week sentence."

The judge also expressly stated that she was "not looking at punishment, … [but] at engagement in services to make sure that [the juvenile] engage[s] in intimate partner abuse prevention, to make sure he receives the counseling necessary in order to be able to prevent that type of thing." The judge repeated during the course of argument that "given the time periods and the particulars of this case, I don’t see that it is[ ] reasonable in any way, shape, or form to commit him to [the] D[epartment of] Y[outh] S[ervices] [DYS] for three weeks. It wouldn’t even entail the start of services in that time period."⁴

₆₉₅Counsel for the juvenile then asked to call a witness from DYS and to present additional evidence. The judge allowed both requests. Prior to the introduction of this evidence, the judge permitted the victim to make a victim impact statement. The victim laid out the details of the assault and its continuing psychological and physical effects. The judge then repeated the basis for her ruling to continue sentencing:

"So again, as I stated, taking into consideration the nature and circumstances of this offense, the victim impact statement, the juvenile’s delinquency recordwhich, as I indicated, includes a continuation without a finding and a commitment to DYS for similar offenses, assault and battery type violent offenses, the lack of success that he has had on probation, and the concerns the [c]ourt has in not addressing the violence that has been on display here for the past two days,⁵ I didn’t think it serves his interests or meets the needs and interest of the [J]uvenile [C]ourt in committing him for three weeks."

The juvenile then presented additional evidence, including the testimony of the juvenile’s DYS caseworker. The caseworker, who had worked with the juvenile for three years, testified that the juvenile would benefit from additional DYS services, including individual therapy, prosocial activities in the community, and family work. He also testified that, should the juvenile be committed to DYS custody after he turned eighteen, he would be released to the community with services after three to five months.⁶

After further discussion of issues that are not implicated in this appeal, the judge then allowed the Commonwealth’s motion and continued sentencing to the day after the juvenile was to turn eighteen. The judge subsequently issued a detailed written memorandum of decision containing a nuanced analysis of the issue and explained, among other things, that her

₆₉₆"paramount concern [wa]s that the [j]uvenile in this matter is in desperate need of aid, encouragement, and guidance. The purpose of committing a [j]uvenile after a finding of delinquency is not only correction, but the redemption to society of the offending child. These goals cannot be satisfied within the narrow window of time between when the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and when he turns eighteen. Therefore, it

...