Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/367/367mass655.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:07:20+00:00

Document:
COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL E. LOGAN.
INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court on November 8, 1973.
An interlocutory report to the Appeals Court was made by Taveira, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted a request for direct review.
Constitution and of Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." The argument of the defendant is that "[c]itizens are entitled to know the penalties for proscribed conduct." The vice of the statute is said to lie in the absence of a maximum limit on sentences thereunder.
This argument flies in the face of a large body of law to the effect that failure to prescribe a maximum sentence for an offense does not invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds. Binkley v. Hunter, 170 F. 2d 848, 849-850 (10th Cir. 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 926 (1949). Bacon v. People, 438 F. 2d 637 (9th Cir. 1971). Earin v. Beto, 453 F. 2d 376, 377 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 406 U.S. 909 (1972). People v. McNabb, 3 Cal. 2d 441, 444-445 (1935). Ex parte Davis, 412 S. W. 2d 46, 50 (Tex. Cr. App. 1967). In California, which has a long history of indeterminate sentencing procedures, the argument advanced by the defendant has been examined on numerous occasions and the California courts have invariably upheld the statutes imposing minimum but not maximum sentences. See People v. McNabb, supra; People v. Sigel, 55 Cal. App. 2d 279, 285 (1942); People v. Wells, 68 Cal. App. 2d 476, 483 (1945). We find the reasoning of these cases persuasive. Under such a statute the maximum sentence permitted by the Legislature is presumed to be a life term so that the sentence cannot be said to be vague or uncertain. Binkley v. Hunter, supra. People v. McNabb, supra. This interpretation is not inconsistent with G. L. c. 279, Section 24, for if the sentence imposed is other than for life the judge must still fix both a maximum and a minimum term under Section 24.
Commonwealth v. Moore, 359 Mass. 509 , 515 (1971); Commonwealth v. Morrow, 363 Mass. 601 , 610-611 (1973); In re Lynch, 8 Cal. 3d 410 (1972).
It follows that the answer to the reported question is "No." The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
[Note 1] Section 10 has been amended by St. 1974, c. 649, Section 2, to prescribe maximum as well as minimum sentences for subsequent offenders under Section 10. By St. 1975, c. 4, the operation of the 1974 amendment was suspended until April 1, 1975. In any event, the amendment has no effect on this prosecution. G. L. c. 4, Section 6, Second. Patrick v. Commissioner of Correction, 352 Mass. 666 (1967).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.