2/7/2024 0 Comments Pina records court![]() In Pina's view, because the charges in both his and Depina's cases stem from the same firearm, the cases are related and the fact that evidence of the firearm was suppressed in Depina's case should have been a part of Pina'sĭefense in his own case. This is a somewhat different issue from that raised before the single justice - that he was entitled to discovery in Depina's case. Pina appeals, and has now changed tack, arguing that he should be allowed to "intervene" in Depina's case. A single justice denied the petition, noting that Pina had no substantive right to obtain discovery in Depina's case and that, to the extent Pina sought to challenge his own conviction, the proper route to do that was to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court. Furthermore, Pina argued, he had, under the circumstances, "automatic standing" to petition the district attorney's office that had prosecuted Depina to produce all evidence related to the firearm. In the petition, Pina argued that he was a "party of interest" in Depina's case because the firearm at the root of the charges against Pina was seized from Depina. 231, § 118, because there had been a final disposition in the underlying case in the trial court, the filing was transferred to the county court and treated as a petition pursuant to G. On the basis that the Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to G. Pina thereafter sought to appeal the ruling to a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. Several years later, Pina filed, in Depina's case, a "Motion Requesting Court Order to Norfolk DA's Office to Produce and Provide Party of Interest with a Copy of all Police Evidence, Tests, and Chain of Custody Reports," which a judge in the trial court denied. In that case, Depina successfully moved to suppress the firearm on the basis that it had been illegally seized, and the Commonwealth thereafter nol prossed the charges against Depina. The firearm at the root of the charges was recovered during a motor vehicle search at which Pina was not present and that also led to charges in a separate case against a different individual, Danilo Depina. 265, § 15A (c) (1) and commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm, in violation of G. 265, § 18 (b) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, in violation of G. We affirm.Ī jury convicted Pina of several crimes, including armed assault with intent to murder, in violation of G. The petitioner, Ruben Pina, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. (2) SJC-12758 03 Appellee Commonwealth Brief.40 caliber, and 526 total rounds of live ammunition for handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Pina-Nieves.”Īccording to court documents, Pina was indicted last summer for possession of a “Glock pistol, Model 19, 9mm caliber, which was later modified to automatic, one Smith & Wesson, Model SD40. “We trust that we will prevail in the appeals process and that eventually, the Court of Appeals will revoke the conviction since our legal arguments are convincing and the errors of the District Court undermined the fairness of the judicial process against Mr. ![]() “The next step will be to file a motion with the First Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that our client be allowed to remain free on bond during the appeal process,” Pina’s attorneys said in the statement. The jury had found him guilty of two counts of violations of the Arms Law and he was ordered to pay a $150,000 fine. In a statement obtained by Billboard on Wednesday (May 25), the law offices of Francisco Rebollo-Casalduc explained that they had filed a notice of appeal after Pina was sentenced by Judge Francisco A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |