Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL CHARROS 2010-P-1498 UID(28b5)


Court Case Number: 2010-P-1498

Case Number2010-P-1498
Case TypeCriminal
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtBristol Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date10/01/1998
Close Date11/07/2011


David B. Mark, Esquire Shoshana Stern, EsquireCommonwealthPlaintiff/Appellee
Michael D. Cutler, EsquireMichael CharrosDefendant/Appellant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/26/2010 #1 Entered.
08/26/2010 #2 Notice of entry sent.
08/26/2010 #3 Transcripts received: NONE
09/27/2010 #4 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant Michael Charros.
09/27/2010 #5 MOTION to stay further execution of sentence pending appeal, and request for hearing, filed by Michael Charros.
10/12/2010 #6 OPPOSITION to #3 filed by Commonwealth.
10/15/2010 #7 RE#3: After review, denied, as defendant has failed to demonstrate reasonable likelihood of success on the merits (Graham, J.). Notice
10/29/2010 #8 MOTION to extend brief due date of Commonwealth.
10/29/2010 #9 RE#5: Allowed. The Commonwealth's brief is accepted for filing this date. Notice.
10/29/2010 #10 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Commonwealth.
11/15/2010 #11 MOTION to extend reply brief due date, filed by Michael Charros.
11/15/2010 #12 RE#7: Allowed to 11/24/10. Notice.
11/19/2010 #13 SERVICE of reply brief for Defendant/Appellant Michael Charros.
12/08/2010 #14 MOTION for expedited hearing of the appeal, filed by Michael Charros.
12/20/2010 #15 RE#9: The defendant's motion to expedite his appeal is denied. The defendant has failed to identify a specific ground warranting preferred treatment of his third effective appeal (Sikora, J.). Notice
03/11/2011 #16 Notice of 04/12/2011, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 3 sent.
04/12/2011 Oral argument held. (Cohen, J., Katzmann, J., Vuono, J.).
07/28/2011 ORDER: The sole question raised in this appeal is whether the rule announced in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) concerning the applicability of the confrontation clause to certificates of chemical analysis (the rule) applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Supreme Judicial Court has recently answered this question and decided that "the rule is a 'new' rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)," and, as such, does not apply to drug related convictions that became final prior to the Supreme Court's decision. Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, SJC-10857. Accordingly, the rule is not available to the defendant in this appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial. Order denying motion for new trial affirmed. (Cohen, Katzmann & Vuono, JJ.). *Notice/Attest/Brady, J.
08/09/2011 Assented-To Motion to stay issuance of rescript, filed by Michael Charros.
08/26/2011 RE#12: Notwithstanding the issuance of the Court's Order on 7/28/11, the appellant is not prejudiced to seeking relief, pursuant to MRAP 27.1, in the Supreme Judicial Court. *Notice.
09/13/2011 Second motion to stay issuance of rescript, filed by Michael Charros.
09/20/2011 Copy of FAR application of Michael Charros.