Title: Garcia v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12579
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-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.