seal

Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. MAURICE SHACKLEFORD 2011-P-0816 UID(1d4e)


COMMONWEALTH vs. MAURICE SHACKLEFORD Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-P-0816


 
Case Number2011-P-0816
Case TitleCOMMONWEALTH vs. MAURICE SHACKLEFORD
Case TypeCriminal
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date02/23/2010
Close Date03/09/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
John P. Zanini, Esquire Teresa K. Anderson, EsquireCommonwealthPlaintiff/Appellant
Michael Cerulli, EsquireMaurice ShacklefordDefendant/Appellee
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
05/12/2011 #1 Entered.
05/12/2011 #2 Notice of entry sent.
06/22/2011 #3 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by Commonwealth.
06/22/2011 #4 RE#2: Allowed for filing this date. Notice to counsel.
06/22/2011 #5 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Plaintiff/Appellant Commonwealth.
07/25/2011 #6 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Maurice Shackleford.
08/01/2011 #7 Copy of DAR application of Commonwealth.
11/17/2011 #8 DAR DENIED (on 11/16/11).
12/01/2011 #9 Notice of 01/04/2012, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 3 (a3) sent.
12/28/2011 #10 Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by Commonwealth.^
01/04/2012 #11 Oral argument held. (Katzmann, J., Vuono, J., Meade, J.).
01/05/2012 Motion for attorney's fees and costs, filed by Maurice Shackleford.@
01/30/2012 Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by Commonwealth.@
02/10/2012 RE#7: The Commonwealth shall have fourteen days from the date of the rescript to respond to this motion (Katzmann, Vuono & Meade, JJ.). *Notice.
02/10/2012 Decision: Rule 1:28 Order allowing motion to suppress reversed (Katzmann, Vuono, Meade, JJ.). *Notice.
03/09/2012 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.
04/06/2012 Letter from Attorney Michael Cerulli re: Status of fee request.@
04/23/2012 ORDER: Pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(d), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996), the defendant has filed a petition for attorney's fees and costs totaling $8,975.00. The Commonwealth has not filed an opposition, and the time period provided for such a response has passed. A determination of the amount of reasonable appellate fees is "largely discretionary." Stowe v. Bologna, 417 Mass. 199, 204 (1994) (citation omitted). In making such a determination, we "properly exercise[] independent judgment concerning the request's reasonableness." Ibid. In determining whether a fee is reasonable, we do not focus on the amounts billed or the amount in controversy, but rather on "several factors, including 'the nature of the case and the issues presented, the time and labor required, . . . the result obtained, the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney, the usual price charged for similar services by other attorneys in the same area, and the amount of awards in similar cases.'" Berman v. Linnane, 434 Mass. 301, 303, quoting from Linthicium v. Archambault, 379 Mass. 381, 388-389 (1979). We are not obliged to "review and allow or disallow each individual item in the bill, but [may] consider the bill as a whole." Ibid. After reviewing the defendant's motion and supporting materials, the briefs filed and the record in this matter, the time expended, counsel's level of expertise and experience, the fees customarily charged for similar work, and the lack of any opposition, we are of the opinion that the requested award of attorney's fees and costs is not entirely reasonable. Although the requested hourly rate for counsel and his associate is reasonable, we find that the amount of hours billed by them to be excessive. Accordingly, the defendant is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $7,975.00, and costs in the amount of $75.00. Any proceedings to enforce this award shall be commenced in the Superior Court. (Katzmann, Vuono & Meade, JJ.) Notice/attest