Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Commonwealth v. Melo
Citations: 65 Mass. App. Ct. 674; 843 N.E.2d 659; 2006 Mass. App. LEXIS 235Docket: No. 04-P-1606
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; March 6, 2006; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
In January and February 1997, John Melo was convicted of home invasion, armed assault in a dwelling, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, receiving a ten-year sentence for home invasion and a concurrent four-to-six-year sentence for armed assault, along with five years of concurrent probation for the assault charges. In August 2004, Melo moved to correct the mittimus, arguing that the Department of Correction (DOC) failed to credit him for leap year days served. The court granted his motion, prompting the Commonwealth to appeal. Melo contended that his sentence of "ten years to ten years and one day" should include leap year days, but the Legislature defines a year as a calendar year, which the DOC must follow in calculating sentences. The Commonwealth argued that a motion to correct the mittimus was inappropriate for challenging DOC's calculations and that Melo did not contest the accuracy of the mittimus itself. Additionally, Rule 42 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for correction of clerical errors, but Melo's claim was substantive regarding the definition of "year." Rule 30(a) allows for relief from illegal sentences but does not apply since Melo did not claim his sentence was illegally imposed. There was no applicable rule for the situation he raised. A prisoner can challenge the Department of Correction's (DOC) sentence calculation through either habeas corpus or declaratory judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court determined that a prisoner entitled to immediate release may seek a writ of habeas corpus, while those not entitled can use declaratory judgment procedures under G. L. c. 231A to address controversies regarding their sentence execution. In the case referenced, since the defendant was not entitled to immediate release, he should have pursued a declaratory judgment rather than a motion to correct the mittimus. The court found that it was both procedurally and substantively erroneous to grant the motion to correct, as the defendant was sentenced to a term of years, not days. The motion for additional jail credit for specific dates was therefore not permitted. The court reversed the order allowing the motion to correct the mittimus and affirmed the defendant's convictions from December 1998.