Opinion
No. 10–P–2027.
2013-04-1
COMMONWEALTH v. Daniel FRANCIS.
By the Court (GRASSO, TRAINOR & CARHART, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In this appeal from an order denying his motion for a new trial, the defendant maintains that the Superior Court judge erred in concluding Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), announced a “new rule” that is not available to a defendant upon collateral review of his conviction. We affirm.
A jury found the defendant guilty of two drug offenses on October 4, 2006. On August 8, 2008, we affirmed the defendant's convictions on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Francis, 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1111 (2008). On October 2, 2008, the Supreme Judicial Court denied further appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Francis, 452 Mass. 1105 (2008). The defendant's convictions became final ninety days later, on December 31, 2008, when the time for filing a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court expired. The Supreme Court announced its decision in Melendez–Diaz on June 25, 2009. In Commonwealth v. Melendez–Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239–240 (2011) ( Melendez–Diaz II ), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Melendez–Diaz regarding the applicability of the confrontation clause to certificates of chemical analysis (drug certificates), is a new rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and, as such, is not available to a defendant upon collateral review of his conviction. Because the defendant's convictions became final before Melendez–Diaz issued, he may not challenge his convictions on that basis.
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.