Title: Commonwealth v. Ridge

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11676 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOSEPH S. RIDGE. 
 
 
March 2, 2015. 
 
 
Practice, Criminal, Sentence. 
 
 
 
In 2007, Joseph S. Ridge pleaded guilty to certain offenses 
in the Superior Court in Norfolk County and was sentenced to 
approximately four years in the State prison.  At that time, he 
received credit for time he spent in custody awaiting trial both 
on that charge and on other charges then pending against him in 
Plymouth County.  In 2008, Ridge pleaded guilty to a charge of 
unarmed robbery in the Superior Court in Plymouth County.  
Pursuant to an agreed-upon recommendation that was adopted by 
the sentencing judge, he was sentenced to a term of from 
fourteen to fifteen years in the State prison, concurrent with 
the sentence in the Norfolk County case, which he was then 
serving.  At that time, Ridge neither requested nor received 
credit for his pretrial detention.  In 2013, Ridge moved pro se 
to correct the mittimus as to the Plymouth County case, 
requesting credit for time he was detained awaiting trial.  A 
judge of the Superior Court denied the motion, as well as a 
substitute motion filed subsequently by appointed counsel, on 
the ground that the time in question had already been credited 
against Ridge's sentence in the Norfolk County case, that Ridge 
had benefited from the concurrent sentences, and that 
fundamental fairness did not compel a different result.  We 
allowed Ridge's application for direct appellate review and 
affirm the motion judge's orders. 
 
 
"Pursuant to G. L. c. 279, § 33A, '[c]riminal defendants 
have a right to have their sentences reduced by the amount of 
time they spend in custody awaiting trial, unless in imposing 
the sentence, the judge has already deducted such time or taken 
it into consideration in determining the sentence.'"  Williams 
v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Treatment Ctr., 463 Mass. 627, 
630-631 (2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Milton, 427 Mass. 18, 
23-24 (1998).  Fairness is the basic touchstone, and is the 
appropriate measure in determining whether and to what extent 
credit for time spent in custody shall be given.  Chalifoux v. 
Commissioner of Correction, 375 Mass. 424, 427 (1978).  While 
Ridge acknowledges, as he must, that the time he spent in 
pretrial custody was credited to his Norfolk County sentence, he 
argues that this credit was illusory, as he was subsequently 
sentenced to a longer concurrent term in the Plymouth County 
case.  In other words, he will not be released any earlier as a 
result of this credit.  He therefore argues that fairness 
requires that the credit be applied to the Plymouth County 
sentence.  We disagree.  Where, as here, the time previously 
credited to the defendant is "wholly inclusive of the period the 
defendant claims as credit on" a later-imposed sentence, "there 
is no special consideration of fairness that supports the credit 
that the defendant seeks."  Commonwealth v. Barton, 74 Mass. 
App. Ct. 912, 915 (2009).  See also Commonwealth v. Blaikie, 21 
Mass. App. Ct. 956, 957 (1986) (sentencing judge in Suffolk 
County properly refused to give credit for time previously 
credited against sentences imposed in Middlesex County).  To be 
sure, had the defendant requested credit for his pretrial 
detention at the time of the Plymouth County sentencing, the 
sentencing judge plainly would have had the power to accede to 
or to deny the request.  As noted earlier, no such request was 
made.  Moreover, Ridge agreed to the Plymouth County sentence 
and, without explaining the delay, did not seek any credit 
against it for nearly five years.  In these circumstances, the 
motion judge was not obligated to grant his request.  Ridge 
received what he bargained for, and fundamental fairness does 
not require more. 
 
 
The orders denying the defendant's motions to correct the 
mittimus are affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
Katherine C. Riley for the defendant. 
 
Laurie Yeshulas, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.