Commonwealth v. Parrillo

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Commonwealth v. Cole required vacatur of John J. Parrillo's community parole supervision for life sentence because the CPSL scheme was unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles. The court remanded for resentencing, permitting resentencing only insofar as it would not increase the aggregate punishment or violate double-jeopardy protections. The court did not reach the defendant's additional constitutional challenges to CPSL.

Holdings

1. The community parole supervision for life sentence was unconstitutional because the statutory scheme delegated the distinctly judicial power to impose sentences to the executive-branch parole board, violating separation-of-powers principles, and the unconstitutional provision was not severable from the remainder of the scheme.
2. Because CPSL was imposed as part of an integrated sentencing package, the entire sentencing scheme had to be vacated and the judge had to be afforded an opportunity to restructure the sentence.
3. Resentencing following the defendant's Rule 30(a) motion does not itself violate double jeopardy, but the aggregate punishment may not be increased and the resentencing must be quantitatively fair.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Parrillo's community parole supervision for life sentence was unconstitutional.
2. Whether the court could vacate only the community parole supervision for life component or was required to permit resentencing on the integrated sentencing package.
3. Whether resentencing after a Rule 30(a) motion would violate double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded