seal

Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. NARCISO DUARTE 2011-P-1639 UID(153d)


COMMONWEALTH vs. NARCISO DUARTE Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-P-1639


 
Case Number2011-P-1639
Case TitleCOMMONWEALTH vs. NARCISO DUARTE
Case TypeCriminal
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyWorcester
CourtWorcester Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date12/05/2006
Close Date12/04/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Jane A. Sullivan, A.D.A. Stephen J. Carley, A.D.A.CommonwealthPlaintiff/Appellee
Thomas C. Foley, EsquireNarciso DuarteDefendant/Appellant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
09/20/2011 #1 Transcripts received: volumes: 8; sets: 2 in Clerk's envelope.
09/20/2011 #2 Entered.
09/20/2011 #3 Notice of entry sent.
10/21/2011 #4 Assembly of Record package received from US Postal Service.
10/31/2011 #5 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant Narciso Duarte.
01/20/2012 #6 MOTION to extend brief due date of Commonwealth.
01/23/2012 #7 RE#3: Extension to 02/28/2012 granted for filing of brief of Commonwealth, Plaintiff/Appellee. Notice to counsel.
02/29/2012 #8 Notice of appearance of Stephen J. Carley for Commonwealth.
02/29/2012 #9 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Commonwealth.
07/11/2012 #10 Notice sent seeking information on unavailability for oral argument in September 2012
07/19/2012 #11 Letter from Thomas C. Foley re: unavailable September 4, 2012.^
07/23/2012 Letter of Stephen J. Carley, A.D.A. unavailable for oral argument 8/10, 16, 29 & 9/24, 28.
08/01/2012 Notice of 09/13/2012, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 4 (a4) sent.
09/13/2012 Oral argument held. (Cypher, J., Kafker, J., Katzmann, J.).
10/17/2012 Decision: Rule 1:28 Judgment affirmed. (Cypher, Kafker, Katzmann, JJ.). *Notice.
10/19/2012 PETITION for Rehearing, filed by Narciso Duarte.@
10/25/2012 Copy of FAR application of Narciso Duarte.
10/26/2012 ORDER: The petition for rehearing filed by the appellant having been considered, it is ordered that the said petition be and it hereby is denied. The defendant did not argue on appeal that the consent was not freely given but rather that the consent was the product of unlawful detention and therefore the result of the exploitation of a prior illegality. See Commonwealth v. Torres, 424 Mass. 153, 163 (1997). Given the facts in this case, including that it was the defendant who first suggested that the officer could "check the car," and reaffirmed his consent to search when asked again, any implied argument to the effect that the consent was not freely given does not rise to the level of appellate argument. Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4). (Cypher, Kafker & Katzmann, JJ.). *Notice.
12/03/2012 FAR DENIED (on 11/29/2012).
12/04/2012 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.