Home COMMONWEALTH vs. PAT CALABRESE.

355 Mass. 795

March 12, 1969

There was no error in the trial and convictions of the defendant on two complaints under G. L. c. 272, Section 28A.

Judgments affirmed.

Home EDWARD M. JOYCE vs. GEORGE W. PRESCOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY.

355 Mass. 795

March 12, 1969

The petitioner (plaintiff in Joyce v. George W. Prescott Publishing Co. 348 Mass. 790 ) seeks to vacate a judgment for the respondent (defendant in that case), entered in the Superior Court pursuant to a rescript of this court following its decision holding that a news item describing an action begun by the plaintiff by filing in court a written complaint was an accurate report and that a verdict should have been directed for the defendant. There was no error in the denial of the petition. See Handy v. Miner, 265 Mass. 226 , 228. There is no showing or suggestion that the judgment was entered otherwise than in accordance with law. G. L. c. 231, Section 122. The petitioner urges in effect that this court on the present exceptions should review and reverse the prior decision. A petition in the Superior Court to vacate judgment following rescript may not be availed of, in the Superior Court or in this court, for the purpose sought. See, however, for a discussion of some of the issues involved, Joyce v. Globe Newspaper Co., ante, 492.

Exceptions overruled.

Home JOSEPH J. ROMANO, petitioner.

355 Mass. 795

March 12, 1969

The petitioner excepted to an order of the Superior Court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1956 following three judgments of conviction the petitioner was sentenced to terms for years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole. Twice thereafter he was paroled and twice returned for violations

Page 796

of parole. On June 23, 1967, the petitioner was sentenced for a term of three to five years to be served concurrently with the 1956 sentences. The June, 1967, sentence was unrelated to the 1956 crimes. On June 12, 1968, the judgments of conviction of 1956 were reversed on writs of error. The petitioner makes the extraordinary contention that the concurrent sentence of June 23, 1967, though it has none of the infirmities of the reversed sentences, should also be reversed. The proposition carries its own refutation.

Exceptions overruled.