Title: Commonwealth v. Vargas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11895
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: August 3, 2016

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11895 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DANNY VARGAS. 
 
 
 
Essex.     November 2, 2015. - August 3, 2016. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & 
Hines, JJ.1 
 
 
Marijuana.  Practice, Criminal, Probation, Revocation of 
probation, Assistance of counsel.  Constitutional Law, 
Assistance of counsel. 
 
 
 
 
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on November 19, 2012. 
 
 
A proceeding for revocation of probation was heard by 
Richard E. Welch, III, J. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for 
direct appellate review. 
 
 
 
Michael D. Cutler for the defendant. 
 
Philip A. Mallard, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
Eva G. Jellison & David J. Nathanson, for Committee for 
Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
                     
 
1 Justice Duffly participated in the deliberation on this 
case prior to her retirement. 
2 
 
 
David A.F. Lewis, Sarah Heaton Concannon, & Robyn R. 
Schwartz, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
HINES, J.  In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether 
the medical marijuana law, St. 2012, c. 369 (act),2 establishing 
immunity for the medical use of marijuana, applies in a 
probation surrender proceeding based on the use of marijuana, 
purportedly for medical purposes.  The issue arises from a 
judge's order finding the defendant, who claimed immunity under 
the act, in violation of probation for the use of marijuana, 
terminating the probation and imposing a sentence to State 
prison. 
 
The defendant challenges the disposition and seeks a new 
probation surrender hearing, arguing that the sentence violates 
his right, as a qualifying patient under the act, to the medical 
use of marijuana without adverse legal consequences.  He also 
argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to defend the 
probation surrender on this ground.  The Commonwealth counters 
that the court permissibly conditioned the defendant's probation 
on the prohibition of any nonprescription controlled substance, 
and properly terminated probation for failure to comply with 
this and other conditions.  The Commonwealth also argues that 
                     
 
2 On November 6, 2012, Massachusetts voters approved by 
referendum St. 2012, c. 369, "An Act for the humanitarian 
medical use of marijuana." 
3 
 
counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert the immunity 
provision of the act where defense counsel's decision to forgo a 
medical marijuana defense in favor of a plea for leniency was 
not manifestly unreasonable. 
 
We granted the defendant's application for direct appellate 
review.  We conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, 
the judge committed no error in finding the defendant in 
violation of his probation and that, although counsel was 
ineffective in stipulating to the violation without raising the 
issue as a defense to the violation, the defendant suffered no 
prejudice from this lapse. 
 
Background.  We summarize the facts as recited by the 
Commonwealth at the plea hearing and stipulated to by the 
defendant.  On October 12, 2012, the defendant entered a variety 
store in Haverhill, pointed what appeared to be a firearm at the 
clerk, and demanded money.  The clerk provided approximately 
$400, and the defendant left the store.  Information from the 
clerk and the defendant's mother tied the defendant to the 
robbery, and he subsequently confessed.  The defendant told 
police "that he used some of that money to pay back people to 
whom he owed money and also used some of the money to buy 
marijuana." 
 
Based on these facts, the defendant pleaded guilty to armed 
robbery in April 17, 2013.  During the plea hearing, the 
4 
 
defendant admitted to the regular use of marijuana and stated 
that he had used marijuana during the prior twenty-four hours.  
In accordance with an agreed-upon recommendation, the plea judge 
sentenced the defendant to three years of probation, which 
included conditions relating to illegal drug use without a 
prescription and random drug testing.3  Referencing the use of 
marijuana as a factor in the commission of the crime, the judge 
specifically informed the defendant that the prohibition on the 
use of illegal drugs included the use of marijuana.  The judge 
further explained that the defendant would be required to follow 
all Federal, State, and local laws during the period of 
probation.  The judge also explained, "Those laws include laws 
regarding possession of marijuana.  So during the period of 
probation you would not be able to possess or use marijuana even 
for personal use; do you understand that?"  The defendant 
responded, "Yes, Your Honor."  After receiving this information 
and before sentencing, the defendant stated his explicit 
agreement to the condition of no marijuana use:  "I would just 
like to say if I am put on probation Your Honor I will comply 
                     
 
3 The terms of the probation required the defendant to 
submit to random drug screens, attend substance abuse 
counselling, attend mental health treatment, use medication only 
as prescribed by doctors, abstain from use of controlled 
substances unless otherwise prescribed, submit a 
deoxyribonucleic acid  sample, avoid contact with the variety 
store employees, complete high school, gain employment, and pay 
restitution in the amount of $400. 
5 
 
with everything that is put on me.  I will comply with 
everything and see it through and you will not see me in court 
again."  The judge imposed the probationary sentence with the 
stated conditions to take effect immediately.4 
 
On April 24, 2013, within days of the plea hearing, the 
defendant tested positive for marijuana.  He tested positive for 
marijuana a second time on May 14, 2013.  On May 29, 2013, the 
defendant secured a document from a physician entitled 
"Physician's Certificate for the Use of Medical Marijuana in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pursuant To 105 [Code Mass. 
Regs. §] 725" (certificate).5  That document purported to 
"certify and approve [the defendant's] use of medical marijuana" 
                     
 
4 The judge noted that he had a stark choice to make because 
he could only sentence the defendant to State prison or to a 
period of probation. 
 
 
5 On May 8, 2013, the Department of Public Health 
(department) issued regulations implementing the medical 
marijuana law, St. 2012, c. 369 (act).  Those regulations 
require a two-step process to trigger the immunity provisions:  
(1) a "written certification" from a qualified physician; and 
(2) a valid registration card.  105 Code Mass. Regs. 725.015(C) 
(2013).  When the defendant received his certificate on May 29, 
2013, the department had not yet implemented the procedure for 
the issuance of a registration card.  Therefore, as provided in 
the regulation, the certificate alone was sufficient to invoke 
the immunity provisions of the act.  See Commonwealth v. 
Canning, 471 Mass. 341, 347-348 (2015). 
6 
 
for the relief of symptoms of a "debilitating medical 
condition."6 
 
 On June 17, 2013, the probation officer issued a violation 
of probation notice based on the positive drug screens.  The 
defendant appeared with counsel on August 28, 2013, for the 
surrender hearing.  On the advice of counsel, the defendant 
stipulated to probation violations for the use of marijuana on 
April 24, May 14, May 31, and June 11, 2013, and for the use of 
cocaine on June 11, 2013.7 
 
Based on the facts asserted in the probation violation 
notice and the stipulation by the defendant, the judge found the 
defendant in violation of the terms of his probation and 
approved the agreed-upon recommendation that the defendant 
complete the level-three program at the Lawrence Community 
Correction Center8 "with the added condition that no use of 
                     
 
6 The Commonwealth challenges the validity of this document 
as a certificate for the medical use of marijuana, claiming that 
it was obtained from a "now-defunct . . . 'recommendation'-
mill."  We need not consider the issue based on our conclusion 
that even a valid certificate would not bar the judge's 
disposition on the probation violation. 
 
 
7 Acknowledging that the certificate did not immunize the 
use of cocaine on June 11, 2013, the defendant claimed that the 
cocaine "must have been slipped into the marijuana without him 
knowing." 
 
8 The level-three program at the Lawrence Community 
Correction Center requires daily reporting and other 
rehabilitation and educational services to criminal offenders.  
 
7 
 
drugs, including marijuana, be part of his probation."  The 
judge summarized the recommendation regarding drug use as 
follows, "Full menu, drug and alcohol free, except for 
prescribed medication for back condition by a licensed 
Massachusetts physician."  The probation officer inquired 
whether the condition would state, "including marijuana that 
he's not allowed to use" and defense counsel expanded that 
adding the words "including marijuana" would clarify the intent 
that all legal or illegal use is prohibited.  The judge agreed, 
stating, "No marijuana.  Okay." 
 
During the hearing, defense counsel informed the judge that 
on May 29, 2013, the defendant acquired a certificate for the 
medial use of marijuana.  He did not, however, offer it as a 
defense to the violation or request a modification of the 
conditions of probation on that ground.  Instead, defense 
counsel told the judge that he had reviewed the certificate and 
advised the defendant that it is "not a prescription, it's a 
medical recommendation . . . and it [is] not okay at this point 
in time, based on the way the law is right now, . . . for him to 
use marijuana under any circumstance until it's clarified or 
when we're clear as to who the providers are going to be." 
                                                                  
http://www.mass.gov/essexsheriff/facilities/community-
corrections.html [https://perma.cc/2CTQ-CUNM]. 
8 
 
 
After being reprobated at the August, 2013, surrender 
hearing and agreeing on the advice of counsel to forgo reliance 
on the certificate, the defendant again tested positive for 
marijuana, and he failed to comply with other probation 
conditions.  The probation department issued a second violation 
of probation notice9 on October 7, 2013, requiring the defendant 
to appear for a surrender hearing.  On October 23, 2013, the 
defendant appeared for a hearing on the appointment of counsel.  
At this hearing, the probation officer requested that the 
defendant be detained pending the final surrender hearing, 
explaining that he was requesting incarceration because the 
defendant "continues to miss drug tests and uses marijuana" in 
"flagrant disregard for the rules of the program that he's been 
sentenced to" and shows no "effort of compliance."  The judge 
declined the request to detain the defendant, appointed new 
counsel, and after receiving information about the defendant's 
background,10 inquired whether the parties could fashion an 
alternative to surrender. 
                     
 
9 The October 7, 2013, probation violation notice alleged 
the following violations:  use of marijuana on September 19, 20, 
23, 27, and 30, 2013; failure to report to the Lawrence 
Community Correction Center on September 12, 25, and 26, 2013, 
and October 2 and 3, 2013; and failure to report for drug tests 
on September 17 and 26, 2013. 
 
10 Defense counsel asserted that the defendant came from an 
"intact family," was "currently going to a high school to get 
 
9 
 
 
As at the first surrender hearing, newly appointed counsel 
made no attempt to leverage the certificate on the defendant's 
behalf.  He agreed to a preliminary stipulation to five 
violations for use of marijuana, two violations for failure to 
report for a drug test, and five violations for failing to 
report to the Lawrence Community Correction Center occurring in 
September and October, 2013.  In his argument to the court, he 
explained that he had discussed the medical marijuana 
certificate with the defendant and informed him that it would 
not be a defense to the probation violation. 
 
The judge agreed with counsel's analysis11 and then offered 
the defendant two options:  (1) the judge would continue 
sentencing for four weeks and if the defendant did not "fully 
comply with every single requirement of the Level Three 
Program," including that he "stop using any type of drug, 
including marijuana," and "show up for every single drug test," 
he would receive the full State prison sentence for armed 
robbery and assault; or (2) the defendant could "go in for a 
week, and then to the county jail, and then try to have 
additional terms of probation after that."  The defendant 
                                                                  
his diploma" and was receiving percentages of from seventy to 
eighty in certain classes. 
 
 
11 The judge emphatically stated his agreement, noting that 
even if "[the defendant] has Barack Obama's permission to toke 
at will, it doesn't matter." 
10 
 
acknowledged his understanding of the options and that the 
prohibition of marijuana use included medical and nonmedical 
marijuana use and, through counsel, expressed his desire to 
accept the first option, which would allow him to avoid the 
short period of incarceration.  Accordingly, the judge continued 
the hearing for four weeks. 
 
On November 19, 2013, the probation department issued a 
third violation of probation notice for the defendant's 
appearance on November 20, 2013.  This notice followed a 
positive marijuana test on November 14 and a failure to report 
for a drug test on November 19.  At the final surrender hearing 
on December 11, 2013, before the same judge who had presided at 
the October 23, 2013, hearing, the probation officer informed 
the judge that the defendant failed to appear at the November 
20, 2013, hearing.  Defense counsel reiterated his stipulation 
to the violations and made no further reference to the 
certificate.  The judge terminated the probation and sentenced 
the defendant to a term of not less than two years, and no more 
than four years in State prison.  This disposition is the 
subject of the defendant's appeal. 
 
Discussion.  1.  Immunity.  The defendant argues that the 
judge erred by imposing a sentence for the probation violation 
based on the medical use of marijuana because, as a qualified 
patient, the act granted him immunity from punishment for that 
11 
 
conduct.12  More specifically, the defendant contends that the 
judge was prohibited by the act from sentencing for probation 
violations relating to marijuana because -- prior to the 
sentencing hearing -- he had obtained a certificate for the 
medical use of marijuana.  We disagree.  The judge was not bound 
by any such restraint where, prior to acquiring the certificate, 
the defendant agreed to conditions of probation prohibiting the 
use of marijuana and failed to secure a modification of that 
condition based on his later acquired qualifying patient status.  
Nor was the defendant a qualifying patient entitled to immunity 
under the act when he violated the conditions of his probation 
by using marijuana prior to acquiring the certificate.13  We 
conclude also that even if the defendant were entitled to 
immunity for the medical use of marijuana, the judge could 
                     
 
12 The stated purpose of the act is as follows:  "The 
citizens of Massachusetts intend that there should be no 
punishment under state law for qualifying patients, physicians 
and health care professionals, personal caregivers for patients, 
or medical marijuana treatment center agents for the medical use 
of marijuana, as defined herein."  St. 2012, c. 369, § 1.  The 
act expressly authorizes certain conduct relating to marijuana 
that was previously criminalized.  Canning, 471 Mass. at 349. 
 
 
13 Because the defendant was not a qualifying patient at the 
relevant time for the purposes of the act, we do not reach the 
broader question whether the medical marijuana law limits a 
judge's authority to prohibit the use of medical marijuana as a 
condition of probation where the defendant objects to this 
condition. 
12 
 
properly sentence the defendant for violations independent of 
the use of marijuana. 
 
The analysis of the defendant's right to use medical 
marijuana without adverse legal consequences to his probationary 
status begins with the language of the act, which provides in 
relevant part as follows:  "Any person meeting the requirements 
under this law shall not be penalized under Massachusetts law in 
any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for such actions."  
St. 2012, c. 369, § 4.  More specifically, with regard to the 
use of medical marijuana, the act further provides, subject only 
to certain conditions not relevant in this case, that "[a] 
qualifying patient . . . shall not be subject to arrest or 
prosecution, or civil penalty, for the medical use of medical 
marijuana."  Id.  A "[q]ualifying patient" is further defined as 
"a person who has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as 
having a debilitating medical condition."  St. 2012, c. 369, 
§ 2 (K).  We assume without deciding that the defendant was a 
"qualifying patient" under the act when he acquired the 
certificate on May 29, 2013.14  What we must determine is whether 
his status as a qualifying patient as of that date immunizes his 
                     
 
14 The regulations adopted on May 8, 2013, require that the 
certificate "shall be issued in a form and manner determined by 
the [d]epartment."  105 Code Mass. Regs. 725.010(N) (2013).  
However, it does not appear that the department had further 
specified the "form" on May 29, 2013, when the defendant 
acquired his certificate. 
13 
 
use of marijuana in violation of a condition of probation 
imposed before he became a qualifying patient.  It does not. 
 
As a threshold matter, the defendant does not dispute that 
he violated the conditions of his probation by testing positive 
for marijuana before he received the certificate.  Bypassing the 
implications of this nonimmunized use of marijuana, the 
defendant argues that the issuance of the certificate prohibits 
any punishment for the medical use of marijuana at any time 
thereafter.  We reject this argument, as it overlooks the 
defendant's waiver of his right to use marijuana during the plea 
hearing and the inherent authority of the court to impose a 
prison sentence for a violation of that condition.  See 
Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112 (1990), quoting 
Rubera v. Commonwealth, 371 Mass. 177, 180-181 (1976) ("Any 
conduct by a person on probation which constitutes a violation 
of any of the conditions of his probation may form the basis for 
the revocation of that probation"). 
 
In agreeing to abide by the condition of no marijuana use, 
the defendant explicitly waived his right not to be prosecuted 
for the use or possession of marijuana,15 and he agreed to be 
subject to punishment for noncompliance.  And, consistent with 
the court's inherent authority to enforce the conditions of 
                     
 
15 Under G. L. c. 94C, § 32L, a person may possess "one 
ounce or less" of marijuana without criminal consequences. 
14 
 
probation, going forward, the court could impose appropriate 
sanctions for noncompliance.  See Durling, 407 Mass. at 111-112, 
citing McHoul v. Commonwealth, 365 Mass. 465, 469-470 (1974) 
("If the judge determines that the defendant is in violation, he 
can either revoke the probation and sentence the defendant or, 
if appropriate, modify the terms of his probation.  How best to 
deal with the probationer is within the judge's discretion").  
Because the immunity under the act can only apply once a person 
is designated a qualifying patient, it may not be invoked to 
grant that protection at an earlier time.  The plain language of 
the act contemplates a restraint on punishment, and necessarily 
applies only in circumstances where a person already has 
attained the status of a qualifying patient.  See St. 2012, 
c. 369, § 4 (providing protections for qualifying patients and 
personal caregivers "meeting the requirements under this law").  
It does not operate to relieve the defendant of obligations and 
duties he undertook when he agreed to a condition of probation 
prohibiting the use of marijuana before attaining the status of 
qualifying patient.  Thus, we discern nothing in the act to 
support an interpretation that allows a defendant in such 
circumstances merely to acquire a certificate for the medical 
use of marijuana and, thereby, to vitiate the court's inherent 
authority to punish the violation of a preexisting condition of 
probation. 
15 
 
 
Interpreting the act to require a nexus between qualifying 
patient status and the timing of the particular punishment 
serves important policy interests as well.  The prospective 
focus of the act avoids a wholesale disruption of dispositions 
in criminal cases as would occur if a probationer could acquire 
a certificate and demand the retraction of a prohibition on the 
use of marijuana.  Likewise, the prospective application of the 
immunity provision preserves the court's authority to fashion 
appropriate dispositions for public safety in criminal cases 
without the threat of a future limitation on the prohibition of 
marijuana use. 
 
Last, we view with disfavor a defendant's agreement to 
refrain from the use of marijuana in exchange for probation on a 
life felony and his later attempt to repudiate that agreement by 
acquiring a certificate for the medical use of marijuana after 
he has violated the probation condition prohibiting the use of 
marijuana.  To be clear, we do not suggest that a defendant, 
bound by conditions of probation prohibiting the use of 
marijuana, may not seek the protection of the act.  He or she 
may do so by requesting a modification of the conditions of 
probation, which would be considered in the ordinary course in 
light of all the relevant circumstances.  However, we take 
seriously the purpose of the act as a medical breakthrough for 
patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions; any 
16 
 
advantage to a criminal defendant is only incidental.  In sum, 
where a court has prohibited the use of marijuana as a condition 
of probation prior to a defendant acquiring the status of 
qualifying patient, the defendant is not entitled to immunity 
under the act.  He or she may, however, seek a modification of 
the condition of probation to accommodate the need for the 
medical use of marijuana. 
 
2.  Ineffective assistance of counsel.  The defendant 
argues that in failing to defend the probation violation on the 
ground that the defendant's marijuana use was protected under 
the act by the certificate, counsel provided constitutionally 
ineffective assistance during the surrender proceedings.  We 
conclude counsel's performance in this respect was not 
deficient, but that counsel's failure to seek modification of 
the probation conditions on that ground fell "measurably below 
that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer," 
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).  We conclude, 
however, that counsel's lapse was not consequential.  Therefore, 
we reject the defendant's contention that he is entitled to a 
new probation surrender hearing on this ground. 
 
It is well settled that "a probationer is entitled to the 
effective assistance of counsel at a probation violation hearing 
whenever imprisonment may result."  Commonwealth v. Pena, 462 
Mass. 183, 188 (2012).  The defendant or probationer bears the 
17 
 
burden of proving ineffectiveness by a showing that counsel's 
representation was constitutionally inadequate and that the 
defendant suffered prejudice.  See Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 
471 Mass. 664, 673 (2015); Saferian, 366 Mass. at 96.  We 
consider the defendant's argument as to each required prong of 
the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 
 
a.  Counsel's performance.  The defendant was represented 
by two different attorneys during the proceedings, neither of 
whom proffered the certificate as a defense to the asserted 
violation for marijuana use or as a basis for modification of 
the condition prohibiting the use of marijuana.  Both attorneys 
advised the defendant, and argued to the court, that the medical 
marijuana certificate lacked any legal effect and that it could 
not be asserted as a defense to the probation violation. 
 
The first attorney appeared for the defendant at the 
initial probation surrender hearing on August 28, 2013, during 
which the probation officer urged surrender based on the 
defendant's violation of the condition prohibiting the use of 
all "illegal" drugs.  However, the defendant had secured the 
certificate on May 29, 2013, which, in accordance with the act, 
theoretically could have immunized his use of marijuana after 
that date.  During the hearing, however, counsel stipulated to 
all violations (including marijuana use before and after he 
obtained the certificate) and expressly eschewed any possible 
18 
 
use of the certificate as a justification for the defendant's 
violation.  Counsel told the judge that the defendant "was under 
the impression that he could get medical marijuana" because of 
the certificate, but that he (counsel) informed the defendant 
that the certificate "is not a prescription, and it [is] not 
okay at this point in time, based on the way the law is right 
now, . . . for him to use marijuana under any circumstance until 
it's clarified or when we're clear as to who the providers are 
going to be."  The act contained no such provision, however, and 
provided immunity to qualifying patients from "arrest or 
prosecution, or civil penalty," for the medical use of marijuana 
in accordance with the act.  St. 2012, c. 369, § 4.  With the 
certificate in hand, counsel was obligated, at the very least, 
to consider seeking a modification of the conditions of 
probation based on the certificate. 
 
The second attorney's conduct at the October hearing and 
the December final surrender hearing was similarly lacking in 
the required level of professional competence.  During the 
October hearing at which the judge considered alternatives to 
surrender, counsel appeared to dismiss any possible 
justification for the defendant's use of marijuana for medical 
purposes, asserting that the defendant suffered from an 
"addiction" to marijuana and believed that "this medical 
marijuana thing was his be all and end all."  He then added his 
19 
 
own view that "[i]t's not."16  This statement in open court 
revealed, inappropriately so, a suspicion of the defendant's 
motivation for the medical marijuana certificate. 
 
At the final surrender hearing in December, 2013, the 
attorney stipulated to the defendant's probation violations, 
thereby declining to take any account of the medical marijuana 
certificate.  Here, counsel was even more openly skeptical of 
the defendant's legal rights under the certificate, referring to 
the defendant's "cleverness" in obtaining the certificate. 
 
Despite the long odds of success at this stage of the 
surrender proceedings, the option of a modification of the 
probation remained available to the defendant, particularly 
where it had not been considered previously.  On this record, it 
appears that counsel not only failed to assess the legal 
                     
 
16 Inexplicably, counsel at the October hearing appeared not 
to appreciate his role as advocate for the defendant during the 
hearing.  For example, counsel, who had met the defendant for 
the first time when he was appointed the day of the hearing, 
stated to the judge that "he [the defendant] has skyrocketed 
into the top ten of the most infuriating clients I've ever had 
the opportunity to represent."  Counsel used this reference on 
several occasions during the course of the hearing.  In a 
similar vein, counsel agreed with the judge's suggestion that 
the defendant was not a good probationer, adding that the 
defendant was "a horrible probationer."  Also, defense counsel 
was unusually frank in reporting the content of his discussion 
with the defendant regarding the certificate.  He revealed to 
the judge that he had asked the defendant whether he had court 
permission to use marijuana in accordance with the certificate 
and that the defendant had answered "no." 
20 
 
viability of the certificate as a defense to the probation 
violation, but also expressly disparaged its legitimacy.  Such 
conduct is not acceptable as a standard for the "ordinary 
fallible lawyer."  Saferian, 366 Mass. at 96. 
 
We have noted the Commonwealth's position that counsel's 
decision to bypass the medical marijuana certificate was a 
tactical strategy to obtain the most favorable disposition on 
the surrender and that, as such, it was not "manifestly 
unreasonable," Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435, 442 
(2006), in light of the defendant's other unrelated violations 
of the probation conditions.  The point is well taken because 
the judge reasonably could expect strict compliance with the 
terms of straight probation on a life felony.  Nonetheless, this 
case presented important issues of first impression that should 
not have been resolved against the defendant by counsel's 
uninformed and narrow interpretation of the reach of the act.17 
 
b.  Prejudice.  Although we conclude that counsel was 
obligated to pursue at least a modification of the conditions of 
probation to accommodate the defendant's medical marijuana 
certificate, the failure to do so in the circumstances of this 
case was not prejudicial.  The use of marijuana was not the only 
                     
 
17 At the time of the hearing, no appellate court had opined 
on the parameters of the act for "qualifying patients" in 
criminal proceedings. 
 
21 
 
compliance issue for the defendant and the judge properly could 
have terminated the probation on grounds unrelated to the use of 
marijuana. 
 
The defendant does not challenge the validity of the 
conditions requiring him to report for drug testing and the 
mandated drug program, nor does he dispute that these violations 
occurred.  The defendant failed to report for drug testing on 
three different occasions, on September 17, 2013; September 26, 
2013; and on November 19, 2013.18  Also, the defendant was found 
to have used cocaine on June 11, 2013.  Even if the judge had 
given full effect to the medical marijuana certificate, the use 
of cocaine would stand as a violation of the condition 
prohibiting the use of illegal drugs.  In ruling on the 
defendant's motion for a new hearing on the probation surrender, 
the judge specifically cited the compliance issues independent 
of the marijuana use.  Thus, there was no prejudice in counsel's 
failure to proffer the certificate as a defense or as a basis 
for modification of the conditions of probation. 
                     
 
18 The probation officer also alleged that the defendant 
failed to report to the level-three program at the Lawrence 
Community Correction Center program.  It appears that the 
defendant was terminated from the program sometime between the 
October 23, 2013, hearing and sentencing on December 11, 2013, 
because of a juvenile sex offense in Florida. 
22 
 
 
Conclusion.  We affirm the order finding the defendant in 
violation of the conditions of probation and the sentence based 
on that violation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.