Title: Commonwealth v. Padua
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12321
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: March 2, 2018

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12321 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  EDWIN PADUA. 
 
 
March 2, 2018. 
 
 
Practice, Criminal, Sentence.  Moot Question. 
 
 
 
In 2000, Edwin Padua pleaded guilty to two counts of 
threatening to commit a crime, and the charges were placed on 
file at that time.  In 2014, in connection with proceedings on a 
subsequent probation violation, a judge in the District Court 
brought the filed charges forward and sentenced Padua on them.  
In an unpublished memorandum and order, the Appeals Court 
determined that the charges had been properly placed on file and 
then brought forward, but remanded the matter to give the 
sentencing judge an opportunity to explain the basis for the 
sentences he imposed.  After the judge responded, the Appeals 
Court issued an unpublished decision affirming the convictions 
on the filed charges but vacating the sentences and remanding 
for resentencing due to certain doubts it had concerning their 
propriety.  Commonwealth v. Padua, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 
(2016).  We allowed Padua's application for further appellate 
review. 
 
 
The sole issue before us is the proper disposition of the 
appeal where the Appeals Court determined that the charges were 
properly placed on file and then brought forward for sentencing, 
but remained in doubt as to the propriety of the sentences 
themselves.1  We reject Padua's suggestion that it was improper 
                     
 
1 Our order granting further appellate review did not 
expressly limit the scope of review, but this is the only issue 
that Padua presses in this court.  See Moronta v. Nationstar 
Mortgage, LLC, 476 Mass. 1013, 1014 n.2 (2016); 81 Spooner Rd., 
2 
 
to vacate the sentences without simultaneously vacating the 
convictions.  It is well established that an appellate court may 
do so where it concludes that the defendant was properly found 
guilty of an offense, but that the sentence was improper in some 
respect.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Penn, 472 Mass. 610, 628-
629 (2015) (remanding for resentencing after invalidation of 
life sentence without possibility of parole for juvenile 
convicted of murder in first degree); Commonwealth v. Williams, 
456 Mass. 857, 875 (2010) (remanding for resentencing where 
sentences exceeded statutory maximum); Commonwealth v. Pillai, 
445 Mass. 175, 194 (2005) (remanding for resentencing after 
invalidation of term of lifetime community parole supervision).  
Although, as we shall explain, remanding for resentencing was 
improper in this case, it is a valid disposition as a general 
matter.  Nothing in Commonwealth v. Simmons, 448 Mass. 687 
(2007), is to the contrary:  the fact that "a judgment of 
conviction does not enter unless sentence is imposed," id. at 
688 n.2, in no way requires an appellate court to vacate a fair 
and just conviction merely because the sentence is incorrect. 
 
 
Even though an appellate court generally may remand a case 
for resentencing while affirming the underlying conviction, it 
was nevertheless improper to do so in the particular 
circumstances of this case.  While the case was pending in the 
Appeals Court, Padua finished serving his sentences, rendering 
moot any error therein.  This would not warrant dismissing the 
appeal entirely, as Padua continued to have an interest in 
obtaining relief from the convictions themselves.  However, once 
the convictions were affirmed, no purpose could be served by 
remanding the matter for resentencing, because no effective 
relief could be granted to Padua.  See Commonwealth v. Mattier 
(No. 2), 474 Mass. 261, 277 (2016) (vacating one of three 
convictions, but not remanding remainder for resentencing "where 
[defendant's] sentence is unlikely to be affected by our 
decision").  Accordingly, the proper disposition of this case is 
simply to affirm the judgments of the District Court, without 
remand for resentencing.2 
 
                                                                  
LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692, 693 
n.3 (2012). 
 
 
2 We express no view as to whether the sentences imposed by 
the judge were improper in any respect, or as to whether the 
Appeals Court was right to doubt their propriety.  We simply 
conclude that where the sentences were fully served, 
resentencing could have no practical effect on Padua. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
 
 
Max Bauer (Joshua D. Werner also present) for the 
defendant. 
 
David B. Mark, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.