Case Title: Falcone v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12833

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-22T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12833 
 
CHAD J. FALCONE  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 22, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Bail. 
 
 
 
Chad J. Falcone (defendant) appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, his petition under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, for relief from home confinement as a 
condition of his bail.  We affirm. 
 
 
The defendant was charged with open and gross lewdness, 
subsequent offense, after he allegedly stood in his driveway and 
exposed himself to passersby.  Prior to this incident, the 
defendant had been convicted of similar offenses on numerous 
occasions. 
 
 
At the defendant's arraignment, a judge in the District 
Court set bail and, as a condition of release, ordered that the 
defendant be subject to global positioning system (GPS) 
monitoring and confined to the interior of his home.  The 
defendant signed an "order of GPS supervision conditions" 
indicating that he understood these conditions and agreed to 
observe them.  Bail was posted, and the defendant was released 
subject to these conditions. 
 
 
The defendant subsequently filed a petition for bail review 
in the Superior Court.  The defendant filed, in the District 
Court, a motion to be released from home confinement for four 
hours in order to attend the bail review hearing.1  The bail 
                     
 
1 It appears that on other occasions, the defendant has 
successfully moved for temporary release from home confinement 
2 
 
 
judge denied that specific request, but instead ordered the 
defendant to appear in the District Court at the appointed time, 
thence to be released to the Superior Court for the hearing.  
The defendant thus appeared at the bail review hearing, and his 
petition was denied.  His G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the 
county court, in which he challenged only the order of home 
confinement, followed. 
 
 
We have long held that a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
is a proper means of obtaining interlocutory appellate review of 
a bail determination made in the trial court.  See Brangan v. 
Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 691, 696-697 (2017); Commesso v. 
Commonwealth, 369 Mass. 368, 372 (1975).  Frequently, a 
defendant has no other means of obtaining adequate appellate 
review of a bail order.  See Brangan, supra at 697.  In this 
case, in our order allowing the defendant's appeal to proceed 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), 
we directed the parties to address whether the defendant has an 
adequate alternative remedy in this case due to his ability to 
obtain release from home confinement on an ad hoc basis.  See 
note 1, supra.  The parties have done so.  In our view, ad hoc 
release does not provide an adequate alternative remedy in the 
particular circumstances of this case.  Although ad hoc orders 
temporarily releasing the defendant would permit him to attend 
important events such as court hearings or medical appointments, 
they are not practicable to address an important aspect of the 
underlying order, namely that he be confined to the inside of 
his home at all other times.  Moreover, the availability of ad 
hoc orders is not an adequate substitute for resolving whether 
he should ever have been confined to his home in the first 
place.  Because the defendant had no adequate remedy apart from 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, we turn to the merits. 
 
 
"When a party appeals from an adverse judgment by the 
single justice under G. L. c. 211, § 3, we review the single 
justice's order for clear error of law or abuse of discretion."  
Brangan, supra at 697.  "We must also consider the propriety of 
the . . . underlying bail order."  Id., citing Commonwealth v. 
Chism, 476 Mass. 171, 176-179 (2017).  We find no error or abuse 
of discretion in the circumstances of this case.  "Being 
restricted to one's home is not the equivalent of being 
incarcerated."  Commonwealth v. Morasse, 446 Mass. 113, 120 
(2006).  Particularly where the defendant is alleged to have 
exposed himself in his driveway, just outside his house, and has 
                     
to attend hearings and medical appointments and to meet with his 
attorney. 
3 
 
 
a history of exposing himself in public, the bail judge was 
within his discretion to order the defendant to remain inside 
the house.  The single justice properly denied relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Thomas J. Chirokas for the petitioner. 
 
Marguerite T. Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.