Appellate Case List

Supreme Court of the United States

Massachusetts Appeals Court & Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Queito A. Miranda, Appeal Pending, Docket No. 2018-P-0926
Charge: trafficking a controlled substance (heroin).

Commonwealth v. Vicente Rivera, Appeal Pending, Docket No. 2018-P-0588
Charge: operating under the influence of alcohol, second offense.

Commonwealth v. Michael Fortune, Appeal Pending, Docket No. 2018-P-0204
Charges: breaking and entering in the daytime, larceny over $250.

Commonwealth v. Erich G. Sorenson, Appeal Pending, Docket No. 2017-P-1512
Charge: assault and battery.

Chaudhry v. Mahmood, Appeal Pending, Docket No. 2017-P-1398
Divorce, division of marital property.

Commonwealth v. Pridgett, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 1105 (2018) (Rule 1:28 decision), review granted, 480 Mass. 1104 (2018)
Charges: Receiving a stolen motor vehicle, subsequent offense, and receiving stolen property over $250. Defendant's motion to suppress post-arrest statements affirmed by the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review to define the probable cause required before the police may arrest the occupant of a stolen car.

Commonwealth v. Tomaso, 2018 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 663 (2018) (Rule 1:28 decision), seeking review.
Charge: assault and battery on a correctional facility employee.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 113 (2017) (Rule 1:28 decision), review denied, 478 Mass. 1107 (2017).
Conviction of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen years upheld on appeal.

Commonwealth v. Suriel, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 604, (2017), review denied, 477 Mass. 1110 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 484 (2017).
Convictions for possession of a firearm without a license and possession of ammunition without a license upheld on appeal. The issue presented to the United States Supreme Court was whether the federal Constitution is offended when the police stop a motor vehicle solely to verify a passenger's firearm license status on the "hunch" that he might be unlicensed.

Commonwealth v. Clay, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (2017) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Conviction for two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon reversed and remanded on appeal. Mr. Clay's constitutional rights were violated at trial when the Commonwealth used Mr. Clay's post-Miranda warning or post-arrest silence for the substantive purpose of impeaching his exculpatory story in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976).

Jansen v. Alemu, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2017) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Successfully defended the Family Court's modification judgment. Father awarded joint legal and shared physical child custody with a corresponding child support order.

Commonwealth v. Hillman, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2016) (Rule 1:28 decision), review denied, 476 Mass. 1107 (2016).
Conviction for possession or control of a firearm in a motor vehicle without license upheld on appeal.

Commonwealth v. Dieujuste, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2016), review denied, 476 Mass. 1104 (2016).
Convictions for possession with intent to distribute a class (D) substance (marijuana), drug violation near a school zone, and possession of a class (B) substance (crack cocaine) upheld on appeal.

Commonwealth v. Harris, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2016) (Rule 1:28 decision), review denied, 476 Mass. 1102 (2016).
Conviction for indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen conviction upheld on appeal.

Clawson v. Clawson, Docket Number 2015-P-0058.
Obtained a stay of the divorce judgment in the Family Court. Withdrew from appellate representation.

Physic v. Physic, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2015) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Successfully defended the Family Court's judgment denying the husband's effort to obtain post-judgment relief by challenging the validity of the original divorce separation agreement.

In re Estate of Galatis, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 273 (2015), review denied, 473 Mass. 1107 (2015).
Successfully defended the Probate Court's judgment disallowing a Will due to the lack of testamentary capacity following a ten-day trial admitting substantial medical evidence.

Ventrice v. Ventrice, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 190 (2015).
Reversed the Family Court's divorce judgement awarding child custody. Created new law: it is unconstitutional for a judge to require pre-litigation mediation before filing a future complaint. Such an order denies the constitutionally protected right to access to the court for redress of grievances.

Kelcourse v. Kelcourse, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 33 (2015).
Husband's appeal seeking to enforce the parties' premarital agreement was unsuccessful due to a change in circumstance beyond what the parties contemplated when they executed the agreement.

Creer v. Creer, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 1133 (2014) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Post-divorce judgment was upheld on appeal where Mother's request for reimbursement of the children's college expenses was made after the children's college graduation.

St. Dennis v. St. Dennis, Interlocutory Appeal Docket Number 2014-J-0141.
Successfully vacated the Family Court's allowance of mother's relocation with the children from Massachusetts to Arizona during the pendency of divorce. Children ordered back to Massachusetts, which placed the father back on equal footing during the divorce litigation.

Beras v. Masterman, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1134 (2013) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Successfully defended the Family Court's modification of child custody from mother to father.

Swistak v. Stelmokas, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2013) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Successfully reversed the dismissal of a Family Court grandparent visitation action which was unconstitutionally terminated by violating the grandparent's right to due process. Case placed back on the lower court docket for further proceedings before a new judge.

Russo v. Davis, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2013), review denied, 464 Mass. 1108 (2013).
Superior Court medical malpractice summary judgment affirmed. Trial counsel failed to properly move for a continuance under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(f) when his medical expert changed his opinion just prior to trial.

Alvarez-O'Neil v. O'Neil, Interlocutory Appeal Docket Number 2013-J-0342.
Family Court ordered husband to sign a Domestic Relations Order (DRO). Held: the DRO terms did not impermissibly modify the terms of the parties' separation agreement.

Ostroff v. Ostroff, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2012) (Rule 1:28 decision).
Family Court judge erroneously determined that husband's retirement was voluntary and erroneously set a future termination date for wife's alimony. Case remanded for further consideration regarding the amount of alimony and terms for life insurance.