The appellate process is a crucial part of our legal system.  Sometimes children and adults need an advocate to guide them through an appeal, sometimes constitutional errors are made in the trial courts, sometimes lower court judges make mistakes, sometimes people are wrongfully convicted, sometimes justice is not done, and sometimes people just need a second chance to turn their lives around.  Attorney Toomey has drafted a variety of appeals in criminal and civil cases, including appeals from criminal convictions and family law appeals involving the safety and best interests of children.  Although appellate counseling does not always result in a published court decision, some favorable results include:

Commonwealth v. CM, Barnstable Superior Court (2024) (the Superior Court resentenced my juvenile client to a shorter term of incarceration for manslaughter; the original sentence for a non-murder offense was disproportionate and unconstitutional because the juvenile would have served more time in prison before parole eligibility than a juvenile convicted of the more serious crime of murder).

Commonwealth v. Goshen, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (2023) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the decision of a Superior Court judge granting my client a new sentencing hearing for his manslaughter conviction because adolescent brain science was not presented or considered at the original sentencing of the client who was only 18 years old at the time of the alleged incident).

Commonwealth v. Higuera, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2023) (on interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court reversed a lower court order which had denied a dispositive motion to suppress, concluding that the motion should have been granted because warrantless police actions were unconstitutional).

Commonwealth v. Andrade, Haverhill District Court (2022) (After filing a Motion For A New Trial raising a claim of ineffective assistance of prior counsel, the motion was allowed by agreement, a new trial was granted, and the case was dismissed).

Commonwealth v. Lucien, Suffolk Superior Court (2021) (A Motion For A New Trial was allowed, vacating my client’s wrongful convictions for murder and armed robbery, and the prosecution immediately filed a nolle prosequi, which ended the case and freed the client after 27 years in prison). 

Commonwealth v. D.M., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 211 (2021) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed an order denying a juvenile client’s motion to suppress and permitted the juvenile to withdraw his conditional guilty plea, resulting in the client’s case being dismissed). 

Commonwealth v. Jenks, 487 Mass. 1032 (2021) (a Superior Court judge erred in denying the client’s motion seeking post-conviction forensic testing).

Commonwealth v. Barrett, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 437 (2020) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a police officer’s act of answering an arrested citizen’s ringing cell phone is a search in the constitutional sense; because police lacked a warrant and did not prove exigent circumstances, the phone calls should have been suppressed; the client’s convictions were reversed because the admission of that evidence at trial was not harmless).

Commonwealth v. Kearse, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 297 (2020) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the allowance of a pretrial motion to suppress; a police officer's observation of the defendant in a high crime area standing near two men who engaged in a quick handshake did not create a constitutionally reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop and seizure of the client without a warrant, and police lacked a reasonable suspicion that the the client was armed to justify a pat-frisk).

Commonwealth v. Perkins, Plymouth Superior Court (2020) (the client’s motor vehicle homicide conviction was vacated and a new trial granted because newly discovered evidence about the functioning of the breathalyzer would have been a real factor in trial deliberations).

Adoption of Lakyra (a pseudonym), Massachusetts Appeals Court (2020) (representing appellee children on appeal from a care and protection decision, the Appeals Court affirmed the Juvenile Court order of parental unfitness).

Commonwealth v. Hairston, Middlesex Superior Court (2020) (a Motion For A New Trial was granted by agreement due to government misconduct, and a more favorable plea agreement was reached for the client).

Adoption of Jedediah (A pseudonym), Massachusetts Appeals Court (2019) (representing an appellee child on appeal, the Appeals Court panel affirmed the lower court order terminating parental rights and freeing the child for adoption). 

Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (2018) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated a high school student’s marijuana conviction).

Commonwealth v. Garcia, Suffolk Superior Court (2018) (A post-conviction Motion For New Trial was allowed, vacating the client’s convictions of manslaughter and multiple counts of assault and battery).

Commonwealth v. Andrade, Lynn Dist. Court (2018) (A Motion For A New Trial was filed on behalf of a client who had pleaded guilty to credit card fraud and identity fraud without understanding the consequences, the motion was granted, and the client’s multiple fraud convictions were vacated).  

Commonwealth v. Garcia, Middlesex Superior Court (2018) (A post-conviction Motion To Reconsider was allowed, the client’s conspiracy conviction was vacated, and the indictment was dismissed).

Commonwealth v. Unitt, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 93 (2017) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a restitution and bail order that had erroneously forfeited bail posted by family members to pay restitution even though the defendant never defaulted on bail).  

Commonwealth v. Andrade, Lynn Dist. Court (2017) (a Motion For A New Trial was allowed, vacating the client’s trial conviction from a jury-waived bench trial).

Commonwealth v. Rowell, Suffolk Superior Court (2017) (A marijuana conviction was vacated and the indictment was dismissed).

Commonwealth v. Barrett, Appellate Division (2017) (A sentencing appeal was allowed by the Appellate Division and the client’s sentence was reduced).

Commonwealth v. Cristobal, Lynn Dist. Ct. (2017) (A Motion For A New Trial was allowed because there was an insufficient factual basis to show guilt, drug convictions were vacated, and the charges were dismissed).

Commonwealth v. Harriot, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2016) (The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the client’s convictions for possession of a firearm without a license, assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and school zone violations).

Care and Protection of Vick (A pseudonym), 89 Mass. App. Ct. 704 (2016) (representing a father, the Appeals Court affirmed the Juvenile Court judgment granting custody to the father because the mother was an unfit parent and the father was a fit parent).  

Adoption of Nash (A pseudonym), Massachusetts Appeals Court (2016) (representing a neglected child on appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed the Juvenile Court judgment freeing the child for adoption).  

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 90 Mass. App Ct. 1105 (2016) (The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed an order which had erroneously denied a motion for a new trial in a conspiracy case and remanded the case back to the trial court).

Commonwealth v. Wimes, Suffolk Superior Court (2016) (A Motion For A New Trial was granted for a conviction for aggravated assault and battery because constitutional errors deprived the client of important grounds of defense, including the defense of mis-identification).

Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2016) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the client's conviction for witness intimidation based on insufficiency of the evidence and ordered that judgment of acquittal enter for the client).

Commonwealth v. Williams, West Roxbury Dist. Ct. (2016) (After filing a Motion For A New Trial, the client’s convictions were vacated because a young Black male was erroneously charged with trespassing while waiting for school at his bus stop and he received ineffective assistance from his prior counsel).

Commonwealth v. Jordan, 469 Mass. 134 (2014) (the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order suppressing evidence seized during a warrantless stop and search of a rental car where police lacked a reasonable suspicion; this important decision also forth new procedural rules for future interlocutory appeals). 

Adoption of Winnie, Adoption of Adam, Adoption of John (pseudonyms), Massachusetts Appeals Court (2014) (the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld Juvenile Court judgments that were in the best interests of my child clients). 

Commonwealth v. Huddleston, Hampden Superior Court (2014) (post-conviction Motion For A New Trial was granted, the client’s drug conviction was vacated, and the prosecution dismissed the charge). 

Commonwealth v. Lewis, Berkshire Superior Court (2014) (post-conviction Motion For A New Trial was allowed, granting the client a new trial on multiple convictions).

Commonwealth v. Norelus, Cambridge District Court (2014) (post-conviction Motion For A New Trial was allowed because the client’s guilty plea was unconstitutional).

Commonwealth v. Perella, 464 Mass. 274 (2013) (co-counsel on an appeal where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of an armed robbery indictment on statute of limitations grounds).

Commonwealth v. Berube, Hampden Superior Court (2013) (a Motion For A New Trial was allowed, vacating my client’s conviction due to government misconduct).

Commonwealth v. Barrett, Suffolk Superior Court (2013) (A Motion For A New Trial was granted due to government chemist misconduct).

Commonwealth v. Espinosa, Waltham District Court (2011) (A Motion For A New Trial was allowed).

Commonwealth v. Espinosa, Wrentham District Court (2011) (the client’s guilty pleas were vacated).

Every case is different and no specific outcome can be promised or guaranteed. Contact Attorney Toomey today at (978) 773-0189 to discuss a case that you or a family member wish to appeal.

DISCLAIMER

The content of this website is informational only and does not constitute legal advice or a promise of victory. Every case is different, and a specific outcome can never be guaranteed.