As most defendants know, criminal penalties tend to become progressively more serious as you receive more convictions on your record. This applies to gun charges, and the existence of prior charges on your record can increase your sentence significantly. An “armed career criminal enhancement” in Boston can be particularly problematic for defendants. However, a recent case shows that you can successfully appeal such sentencing enhancements, and this case involves the concepts of “resende” and “obiter dictum.”
The Background of the Case
The Commonwealth initially charged the defendant with carrying a firearm without a license, applying a “armed career criminal” sentencing enhancement in the process. When justifying this enhancement, prosecutors pointed to three separate convictions spanning from 2016 to 2018.
What is “Resende?”
The defendant attempted to have the sentencing enhancement dismissed because his prior conviction did not satisfy the rule of “Resende.” This phrase refers to Commonwealth v. Resende, a case from 2016 that involved a similar situation. In this case, the court determined an important rule when calculating a defendant’s prior convictions. According to this rule, convictions lumped together in a single prosecution effectively count as one.
The rule of Resende also states that the court must convict and sentence a defendant before they commit a new alleged offense. If the court fails to complete the sentencing before the defendant commits a new alleged crime, these two separate convictions only count as one.
Is Resende “Obiter Dictum?”
Another important concept that came up during this case is “obiter dictum.” This Latin phrase roughly translates to “spoken in passing.” In a legal context, statements that are obiter dictum are not legally binding. Prosecutors in this case tried to argue that the rule of Resende was obiter dictum, but courts repeatedly upheld it throughout numerous reconsiderations and appeals.
Before this case, there may have been some confusion over the distinction between the phrases “committed on occasions different from one another” and “arising from separate incidences.” The first appears in federal law, while the second appears in state law. Massachusetts’ definition effectively makes the sentencing enhancement less strict, as a single “incident” may include multiple convictions.
In the end, the appellate court upheld the rule of Resende, concluding that although the defendant had three prior convictions, he had only been sentenced for one of them before committing the most recent offense. This allowed him to reduce his sentencing enhancement.
Can a Boston Gun Charge Defense Attorney Help Me?
If you face gun charges in Boston, consider speaking with an experienced defense attorney. Sentencing enhancement is a major concern, and it makes sense to push back. If necessary, you can also file an appeal. That said, the correct strategy depends almost entirely on your unique situation, and you should discuss your unique case with a lawyer for targeted advice. Continue this conversation with Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law for further guidance.