Criminal – Invalidated convictions – Restitution

Listen to this article

Where two defendants’ drug convictions were invalidated, the Supreme Judicial Court remanded the cases on the questions of repayment of probation fees, victim-witness assessments, restitution, fines, forfeitures and court costs.

“In Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249, 1252 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that ‘[w]hen a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur,’ the State is required under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution ‘to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction.’ There can be no doubt that, because of this controlling authority, Massachusetts courts are required to order the refund of fees, court costs, and restitution paid by a defendant as a consequence of a later invalidated conviction. These two cases, however, present ten reported questions regarding the scope and application of the due process obligations established in the Nelson decision. We have reformulated the reported questions into three broader questions to provide guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding the repayment of probation fees, victim-witness assessments, restitution, fines, forfeitures, and court costs after a conviction has been invalidated. …

“Here, all of the counts for which both defendants were sentenced to probation have been invalidated. As a result, all paid probation fees must be refunded because they were paid solely as a consequence of those invalidated convictions. …

“Where the refund or its amount is disputed, the court shall consider the evidence offered by both parties and determine whether the Commonwealth has met its burden to show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is not entitled to the refund amount requested in his or her motion. The court, in its discretion, may conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve such disputes. If the court finds that a refund in any amount is proper, it shall issue a refund order pursuant to the procedure described infra. …

“Where the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity, was itself the victim of a crime and received restitution, a judge may order the Commonwealth or the governmental entity to refund the amount paid, and we expect that order to be honored. But we do not address how a court may accomplish the refund of restitution paid to a private person or entity. We will await an appeal of a case where restitution was paid to a private victim as a consequence of an invalidated conviction to decide that difficult issue. …

“We remand the cases to the reporting courts for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Commonwealth v. Martinez and Commonwealth v. Green (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-18) (37 pages) (Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, J.J.) Case was heard by Abany, J. and Cunis, J., and questions of law were reported by him to the Appeals Court. Benjamin H. Keehn for the defendants; Jessica Langsam and Robert E. Toone for the commonwealth; Sarah M. Joss for Massachusetts Probation Service; Luke Ryan, Daniel N. Marx and William W. Fick, amici curiae (Docket Nos. SJC-12479 and SJC-12480) (Oct. 30, 2018).

Click to read the full text of the opinion.