Case Title: Commonwealth v. Huacon

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13466

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13466 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ARMANI HUACON. 
 
 
May 7, 2024. 
 
 
Youthful Offender Act.  Incompetent Person, Criminal charges.  
Practice, Criminal, Defendant's competency. 
 
 
 
This is one of two cases we decide today regarding a 
court's authority to order competency remediation.  Armani 
Huacon was apprehended after shooting the victim in the face 
during the attempted commission of a robbery.  He was charged as 
a youthful offender and has since been found incompetent by the 
Juvenile Court on multiple occasions.  This case is before us on 
two questions reported by the Juvenile Court judge. 
 
Facts.  The charges against Huacon, originally charged as a 
youthful offender, arise from an attempted robbery on October 
13, 2019, when he allegedly shot the victim in the face at point 
blank range.  Two days later, Huacon was charged as a youthful 
offender with one count of armed assault with intent to murder, 
G. L. c. 265, § 18 (b).  On October 25, 2019, a grand jury 
indicted Huacon on a variety of offenses stemming from the 
attempted robbery, including armed assault with intent to 
murder.  At his arraignment, the Commonwealth moved under G. L. 
c. 276, § 58A, for pretrial detention on the basis of 
dangerousness, as he had a "lengthy juvenile record" and prior 
probation violations.  The motion judge allowed the § 58A motion 
on October 28, 2019.1 
 
1 Huacon was held without bail until May 9, 2023.  His 
subsequent release was revoked for ninety days on August 22, 
2023, under G. L. c. 276, §§ 58A and 58B. 
 
2 
 
 
On November 27, 2019, Huacon was indicted on another 
youthful offender charge, armed assault with intent to rob, 
G. L. c. 265, § 18 (b), arising out of the same incident.  The 
Commonwealth again filed a § 58A motion for Huacon's pretrial 
detention on the basis of dangerousness, which the Juvenile 
Court allowed on December 16, 2019.  Huacon stipulated to 
dangerousness on January 30, 2020, and was ordered held without 
bail.  On February 13, 2020, Huacon stipulated to dangerousness 
in both cases.2 
 
The cases stalled there.  Huacon was found incompetent to 
stand trial on January 25, 2022, and again on March 29, 2022.  
On both occasions, the Juvenile Court judge found that Huacon 
"was likely to become competent with remediation or 
restoration."  Huacon was again found incompetent on August 19, 
2022, and on February 6, 2023 -- in both instances, in contrast 
to earlier findings, the judge found that he was "not likely to 
become competent in the foreseeable future." 
 
During the course of these competency proceedings, Huacon 
was diagnosed with a severe language-based learning disability 
and higher-level executive dysfunction.  One expert opined that 
Huacon "cannot understand a lot of information that is offered 
primarily via language," especially when delivered quickly, and 
that his brain quickly becomes "full."  The expert explained 
that Huacon lacks "strong insight around what he may be missing 
from a content-based perspective" and therefore opined that 
Huacon "will not be able to follow along with . . . fast-paced 
and language-heavy court proceedings." 
 
Following a hearing on April 4, 2023 -- nearly three and 
one-half years after Huacon's initial detention in October 
2019 -- the Juvenile Court determined that, because he was being 
held without bail and because it was not foreseeable that he 
would attain competency, due process compelled Huacon's release 
under Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24, 40-41 (2010).3 
 
Relying on expert testimony, the Juvenile Court found that 
Huacon would not attain competency without "an in-depth, 
comprehensive, and unique remediation program."  Because such a 
 
2 Huacon tendered a plea in September 2020, which was never 
adjudicated due to competency concerns. 
 
3 A single justice of this court upheld this decision. 
 
3 
 
program does not currently exist in the Commonwealth, the 
Juvenile Court appointed a guardian ad litem to make remediation 
programming suggestions.  The guardian ad litem opined that 
Huacon's diagnoses do not render him intellectually impaired -- 
rather, Huacon can "remember information," "analyze material," 
and "make decisions" if taught properly.  Therefore, the 
guardian ad litem suggested that the Juvenile Court hire a 
licensed, qualified special education professional to educate 
Huacon on trial procedure.  In making this suggestion, the 
guardian ad litem emphasized that there would be no "easy fix" 
or "magic pill" for Huacon's competency, particularly given that 
"[f]inding a qualified teacher will not be easy." 
 
In light of the guardian ad litem's suggestions, the 
Commonwealth proffered that Mass. R. Crim. P. 41, 378 Mass. 918 
(1979), granted the Juvenile Court the power to appoint an 
educator and to pay for remediation services.  The judge 
disagreed and referred the issue to the Appeals Court for 
guidance on two questions of law: 
 
(1) "Whose responsibility is it to propose 
remediation/restoration programming and take financial 
responsibility for the cost of those services?  Does Rule 
41 allow the Court to assign an expert to remediate 
competency?" 
 
(2) "What is the Court's ability to order a juvenile to 
engage in a remediation plan or program that the 
Commonwealth or the Court proposes?  If the juvenile 
refuses to comply with the Court's order regarding 
remediation/restoration, what is the Court's authority to 
compel compliance?" 
 
We granted the Commonwealth's application for direct appellate 
review.4 
 
Discussion.  Pursuant to our decision released today in 
Makis M. v. Commonwealth, 494 Mass.    ,     (2024), the ability 
to propose, finance, order, and compel remediation programming 
falls beyond the purview of the court.  In answer to the first 
question, the responsibility to propose and pay for remediation 
programming or to provide for the assignment of an expert to 
remediate competency falls upon the Legislature.  See id. 
at    .  In answer to the second question, the Juvenile Court 
 
4 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the youth 
advocacy division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. 
4 
 
can neither order nor compel a juvenile to engage in a 
remediation plan in the absence of statutory authorization.  See 
id. 
 
Conclusion.  The report is discharged, and the case is 
remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion, as well as the guidance provided 
by Makis M., 494 Mass. at    . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
Benjamin L. Falkner (Andrew H. Zeiberg also present) for 
the defendant. 
Kristen W. Jiang, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
Sarah LoPresti, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for 
youth advocacy division of the Committee for Public Counsel 
Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.