Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Casimir
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided February 16, 2007No. 06-P-420PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMeade, J.
Eighteen years after admitting to sufficient facts to warrant his conviction of possession of cocaine,1 the defendant moved to vacate his plea based on his claim that he did not receive the “immigration warning” required by G. L. c. 278, § 29D. On April 22, 2004, a District Court judge allowed the motion and ordered a new trial. The Commonwealth appeals. Determining that the defendant’s circumstances do not qualify him for a remedy under G. L. c. 278, § 29D, we reverse.
*258On December 20, 1985, the defendant was charged by complaint with possession of a class B controlled substance with the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LopezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. DeMarcoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. MahadeoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Commonwealth v. RzepphiewskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. BertholdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GrannumMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. ValdezMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
- Commonwealth v. SalingerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010