Court Opinion

ID: 9440273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 14:05:29.484422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.829819
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-408

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                                ROLAND ELLISON.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       This is the defendant's appeal from a Superior Court

 judge's 2022 order denying, without a hearing, the defendant's

 third motion for a new trial.         In the motion, the defendant

 primarily argued that his trial counsel had been ineffective; he

 also asserted a variety of pretrial and trial errors by the

 Commonwealth and the trial judge.           Reviewing the order denying

 the motion for "a significant error of law or other abuse of

 discretion," we affirm.        Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303,

 307 (1986).

       Background.     The defendant's appeal from his 2012

 conviction of assault and battery on a correctional officer, and

 his appeal from the order denying his first motion for a new

 trial were consolidated for appellate purposes.             In an

 unpublished decision, a different panel of this court rejected
the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

and thus affirmed the conviction and the order denying his

motion for a new trial.      Commonwealth v. Ellison, 87 Mass. App.

Ct. 1128 (2015).     In 2017, the defendant filed his second motion

for a new trial, again asserting ineffective assistance of trial

counsel.    The trial judge denied that motion, and a different

panel of this court, in a second unpublished decision, affirmed

that order.    Commonwealth v. Ellison, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1103

(2018).

       Discussion.   1.   Ineffective assistance.   In his third

motion for a new trial, the defendant argued that trial counsel

was ineffective because counsel assertedly (1) failed to hire

and call an independent defense expert on competence to stand

trial; (2) failed to investigate and argue a defense of lack of

criminal responsibility (including by failing to appeal from the

order denying the defendant's motion for an additional

competency examination); and (3) failed to assert a "blind rage"

defense based on the defendant's state of mind during the crime. 1

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

defendant must establish that counsel's performance fell

"measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary

fallible lawyer" and "likely deprived the defendant of an

1   This claim was also asserted against prior appellate counsel.

                                    2
otherwise available, substantial ground of defence."

Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

     Here, the defendant failed to make any argument in his

motion, let alone establish, that counsel's performance had

deprived him of an otherwise available, substantial ground of

defense.    The furthest the defendant went in this regard was to

assert, in conclusory fashion and without citing any supporting

evidence, that counsel's failure to hire an independent expert

on the defendant's mental health issues "denied [him] an

otherwise available defense."     The defendant did nothing to show

that he had a meritorious argument of incompetence to stand

trial or a meritorious defense of lack of criminal

responsibility.    Nor did the defendant assert or establish that

a "blind rage" defense would have accomplished any more for him

than the trial strategy counsel pursued, which was to argue that

the defendant attacked the correctional officer after becoming

enraged by derogatory remarks the officer made about the

defendant's mother, who had recently passed away.     Accordingly,

the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the

defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.     See

Grace, 397 Mass. at 307.

     2.    Other claims.   The defendant also asserted in his

motion, again in conclusory fashion, that the trial judge erred

in (1) admitting and considering Dr. Frank Wilson's report on

                                   3
the defendant's mental health; (2) denying the defendant's

motion for funds and ordering an "[u]nconstitutional mental

health . . . examination"; and (3) failing to inform the

defendant and his counsel of how the defendant was going to be

evaluated and of the right to appeal from the order denying the

motion for funds for an independent expert.     The defendant

further asserted in his motion that the verdict was "against the

[w]eight of the [e]vidence," and the prosecutor "sold" the grand

jury "[s]hoddy [m]erchandi[s]e" and "went along with" the

inaccurate testimony of a psychiatrist. 2

     None of these arguments were supported by citations to the

record or any relevant legal authority.     On appeal, moreover,

the defendant's vague and scattered assertions on these issues

do not constitute acceptable appellate argument.     See Mass.

R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).

See also Maroney v. Planning Bd. of Haverhill, 97 Mass. App. Ct.

678, 683 n.8 (2020); Commonwealth v. Gaudette, 56 Mass. App. Ct.

494, 502 n.8 (2002) (defendant's "fleeting assertions" of error

in denial of motion for new trial did "not rise to the level of

appellate argument within the comprehension of Mass. R. A. P.

16").   We need not address them further, except to say that we

2 The defendant makes an additional argument in his brief, not
raised below, that he was, in some unspecified way, denied the
equal protection of the laws.

                                 4
see no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's decision not to

order a new trial on these grounds. 3     See Grace, 397 Mass. at

307.

       3.   Evidentiary hearing.   The defendant also challenges the

denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

However, the defendant did not submit a new affidavit in support

of his motion 4 and did not identify any particular issue on which

an evidentiary hearing would be helpful.        "It was not error for

the judge who denied the motion for a new trial also to deny the

defendant an evidentiary hearing on that motion; the defendant's

submissions raised no substantial issues."       Commonwealth v.

Scoggins, 439 Mass. 571, 578 (2003).

                                        Order dated April 6, 2022,
                                          denying motion for new
                                          trial, affirmed.

                                        By the Court (Sacks, Shin &
                                          D'Angelo, JJ. 5),

                                        Clerk

Entered:     August 3, 2023.

3 In addition, where the defendant has not shown any error at
trial, his argument of cumulative error has no merit. See
Commonwealth v. Garcia Brito, 402 Mass. 761, 767-768 (1988) (no
cumulative error where defendant's individual claims of error
fail).
4 He only submitted a copy of a 2012 affidavit from counsel in

support of his motion for additional examination.
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                    5