NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-517
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
JOHN CASSIDY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was
convicted of four counts of unlawful possession of a large
capacity feeding device, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m);
one count of unlawful possession of a large capacity firearm, in
violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); one count of unlawful
possession of an assault weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 140,
§ 131M; and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition, in
violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1). His convictions were
affirmed by a panel of this court. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy,
91 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2017). The Supreme Judicial Court
granted further appellate review and ultimately affirmed his
convictions. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)
(Cassidy I). The defendant filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied
on October 5, 2018. See Cassidy v. Massachusetts, 139 S. Ct.
276 (2018).
The defendant subsequently filed a motion in the Superior
Court entitled "pro se defendant's motion for clarification and
ruling." A Superior Court judge denied the motion, and the
defendant appealed. While recognizing that the defendant's
motion was procedurally defective, a panel of this court treated
it as one for a new trial and affirmed the Superior Court
judge's order. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 100 Mass. App. Ct.
1119 (2022) (Cassidy II). The defendant again exhausted all
rights of appeal from the order. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy,
489 Mass. 1102 (2022). See also Cassidy v. Massachusetts, 142
S. Ct. 2712 (2022).
This appeal stems from the denial of the defendant's most
recent motion for a new trial, which he filed after the Supreme
Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v.
Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Bruen). The Commonwealth argued
that Bruen did not affect Cassidy's claims of error because its
holding did not speak to states' authority to require firearm
licenses, maintain licensing schemes, or place restrictions on
certain types of firearms. Therefore, the Commonwealth
maintained, whatever the effect of Bruen on District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), it did not undermine Cassidy I's
historical analysis of Massachusetts's firearms laws regulating
2
"dangerous and unusual weapons" such as assault weapons and
large capacity firearms. The Commonwealth also directed the
defendant to Texas, where he now resides, to raise his claim
that his rights are being violated because his Massachusetts
felony convictions limit his right to own firearms there. A
Superior Court judge (motion judge) agreed with the
Commonwealth, denied the motion "for the reasons stated in the
Commonwealth's opposition," and denied the defendant's request
for additional time to respond to the Commonwealth's opposition,
filed on the same day as the motion judge's ruling. The
defendant nevertheless filed a response to the Commonwealth's
opposition to his motion for a new trial. The motion judge,
"[a]fter review and consideration," again denied the motion for
a new trial.
We discern no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's
denial of the motion for a new trial at issue in this appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Duart, 477 Mass. 630, 636 (2017). The
defendant's current appeal merely reiterates his arguments in
Cassidy II. He acknowledged as much during oral argument. To
the extent the defendant's current brief recasts, in light of
Bruen, components of arguments he made in his previous appeals
as challenges under Bruen, the effort is not persuasive. To the
extent the defendant contends "the Second Amendment [was] [his]
license [to carry firearms]," he offered the motion judge no
3
tenable legal support for his position, and we are aware of
none. Finally, even assuming that he was correct that the
Supreme Judicial Court incorrectly determined that assault
weapons are properly considered "dangerous and unusual weapons"
subject to regulation under Massachusetts law, a conclusion we
do not draw, we reiterate that "we are without power to reverse
or modify a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, something
that the defendant acknowledges." Cassidy II, 100 Mass. App.
Ct. at 1119.
Order entered March 23, 2023,
denying motion for new
trial affirmed.
By the Court (Hand,
Hershfang & Brennan, JJ. 1),
Assistant Clerk
Entered: March 4, 2024.
1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4
Commonwealth v. John Cassidy.
Combined Opinion