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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12579

ANTONIO GARCIA vs. COMMONWEALTH.

November 26, 2018.

Bail. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior 

courts.

Antonio Garcia appeals from a judgment of the county court 

denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 

c. 211, § 3. Garcia has been indicted for trafficking of a 

person for sexual services, deriving support from prostitution, 

and, most recently, witness intimidation. On the Commonwealth's 

motion, and after a dangerousness hearing in the witness 

intimidation case, a judge in the Superior Court ordered that 

Garcia be held without bail for a period of not more than 120 

days pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 58A. At the same time, the 

judge set bail in the sex trafficking cases at $20,000 each, a 

reduction of amounts that had been set previously. Sometime 

later, Garcia sought a bail hearing, but the Commonwealth 

objected on the ground that 120 days had not yet run on his 

§ 58A detention. No bail hearing was held at that time. Garcia 

subsequently filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, arguing that 

the judge wrongly denied him release on his personal 

recognizance. We affirm the judgment denying relief.

After considering the indictments, grand jury minutes,

threatening text messages, a portion of a search warrant 

affidavit, dockets for the sex trafficking cases, and Garcia's 

own criminal record, the judge found by clear and convincing 

evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably assure 

the safety of persons in the community. This finding was based 

on evidence of Garcia's use of violence and threats to control 

women for his own financial gain and of his failure to abide by 
2

court orders and conditions of bail.1 Garcia has not shown that 

any of the judge's factual findings were clearly erroneous or 

that the judge otherwise erred or abused his discretion. 

Contrary to Garcia's argument, it is clear that the Commonwealth 

may rely on hearsay at a § 58A hearing. G. L. c. 276, § 58A (4) 

("rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials 

shall not apply to the presentation and consideration of 

information at the hearing and the judge shall consider hearsay 

contained in a police report or the statement of an alleged 

victim or witness"). See Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 

24, 35-36 (2010) (Commonwealth's reliance solely on hearsay

bearing substantial indicia of reliability at § 58A hearing did 

not violate right to cross-examine witnesses). Garcia also 

argues that one of the witnesses testified before the grand jury 

without making a valid waiver of her constitutional rights. 

Garcia "lacks standing to assert the witness's right[s] in this 

regard." Commonwealth v. Lopez, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 649 

(2015), citing Commonwealth v. Peloquin, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 960, 

961 n.1 (1991). Finally, Garcia argues that his counsel failed 

to present evidence of an attack on him committed by a grand 

jury witness; the Commonwealth represents that such evidence was 

in fact before the judge. In any event, the fact that another 

person may have attacked Garcia does not detract from the 

judge's ultimate finding that Garcia cannot be released under 

any conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the 

community. The single justice properly denied relief under 

G. L. c. 211, § 3.2

Judgment affirmed.

Antonio Garcia, pro se.

Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for 

the Commonwealth.

 

1 We emphasize that nothing we say today is intended to 

prejudge any issue in Garcia's upcoming criminal trial.

2 In addition to its arguments that relief was properly 

denied on the merits, the Commonwealth argues that Garcia's 

request for a bail hearing was premature, as the 120-day 

detention period had not expired due to excludable time. See 

G. L. c. 276, § 58A (3) (excluding "any period of delay as 

defined in Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 

36 [b] [2]"). We need not decide this issue due to our 

disposition of the case.