Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. FELIX CARRASCO 2013-J-0317 UID(6afb)


Court Case Number: 2013-J-0317

Case Number2013-J-0317
Case TypeCriminal
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyLawrence District, ES
CourtLawrence District, ES
Court Address
Field Date07/26/2013
Close Date08/09/2013


Elin H. Graydon, Assistant District AttorneyCommonwealthPlaintiff/Respondent
David E. Timmons, EsquireFelix CarrascoDefendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
07/26/2013 #1 Motion to waive the entry fee and to enter the appeal on the docket, filed by Felix Carrasco.
07/26/2013 #2 Motion for stay under M.R.A.P. 6(a) with attachments, filed by Felix Carrasco. ^
07/26/2013 #3 ORDER REGARDING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WAIVE ENTRY FEE. The appellant in the above-captioned action has filed a Motion to Waive entry fee. To complete review of the Motion, the court requires the following: Completed and signed affidavit of indigency in the form attached by the defendant on or before 8/9/13. The required document(s) shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order and shall be delivered or mailed to: APPEALS COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, JOHN ADAMS COURTHOUSE, ONE PEMBERTON SQUARE, ROOM 1200, BOSTON, MA. 02108. The appellant's brief and record appendix remain due in this court on or before 08/09/2013. Notice Sent.
08/07/2013 Affidavit of Indigency with supplement, filed by Felix Carrasco.
08/08/2013 RE#1 ALLOWED FORTHWITH. The appellant's Affidavit of Indigency appears regular and complete on its face, and indicates that the appellant is indigent. The court hereby allows the Motion to Waive entry fee. Notice sent.
08/09/2013 RE#2: To succeed on a motion to stay the execution of his sentence during the pendency of his appeal, the defendant must demonstrate on the record that he has a reasonable likelihood of success on appeal and that he is not a security risk. Polk v. Commonwealth, 461 Mass. 251, 253 (2012). Here the defendant, on probation after having been convicted of a violent offense, was found to have violated his probation for allegedly committing a new violent offense, this time against a child. Whether or not he is ultimately convicted of the new charge, it remains that the only information presented to me regarding whether the defendant is a security risk is that he was recently convicted of assault and battery, destruction of property, and breaking and entering in the daytime, and while under court supervision he was accused of a new crime. Without addressing the merits of the defendant's appeal, it is clear that he is not entitled to a stay where the evidence suggests that if released he may pose a danger to others and commit additional acts of criminality. The motion is denied (Vuono, J.). *Notice/attest/Rooney, J.