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).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of trafficking in cocaine (in an amount between thirty-six and one hundred grams), and of resisting arrest. Arguing that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in one respect, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial judge denied following a nonevidentiary hearing. In this consolidated appeal, we affirm.
Background.
The defendant also takes issue with the fact that the form does not reflect that he waived his Miranda rights before answering the question about his employment status. He is correct that, had his attorney moved to suppress his statements, the Commonwealth would have born the burden of showing that he had waived his rights. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 420 Mass. 666, 669670 (1995). Nonetheless, given that the defendant did not demonstrate any irregularity in his booking, the judge could reasonably have concluded on a motion for a new trial that defense counsel's failure to pursue this issue did not deprive him of a substantial ground of defense.