Commonwealth v. Edgar Belis.

── Commonwealth v. Edgar Belis. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 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 25-P-451 COMMONWEALTH vs. EDGAR BELIS. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 Following a motor vehicle stop in May of 2013, the defendant, Edgar Belis, was charged with several crimes, including conspiracy to violate drug laws, possession with intent to distribute a Class A substance (subsequent offense), and a drug violation in a school zone or park. As part of a plea agreement, the defendant pleaded guilty in the Boston Municipal Court to conspiracy to violate drug laws and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, subsequent offense. The Commonwealth dismissed the possession with intent to distribute charge (subsequent offense) and the school zone charge (carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of two years). On an agreed upon recommendation of the parties, the judge sentenced him to concurrent terms of probation for two years. Over eleven years later, in December of 2024, the defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the same judge who accepted the defendant's guilty pleas in 2013 denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the judge abused his discretion in denying his motion. We affirm. Background. 1. Arrest, plea, and conviction. In his motion to withdraw the plea, the defendant, noting the absence of a transcript of the plea colloquy, stipulated to the facts set forth in a police report. On May 28, 2013, four police officers conducted a traffic stop near the intersection of Franklin Park Road and Blue Hill Avenue in the Dorchester section of Boston, after seeing a vehicle make an illegal turn. The vehicle was occupied by the defendant, who was driving, and a female passenger. Upon approaching the vehicle, one of the officers asked for the defendant's license and the vehicle's registration. A subsequent check of the defendant's license revealed that it had been suspended. The officer then told the defendant to get out of the vehicle and placed him under arrest. Meanwhile, officers saw the passenger "looking back and forth from the passenger['s] side to the driver['s] side [of the 2 vehicle] and patting her chest while she appeared to be breathing rapidly." In preparation for towing, the officers asked the passenger to get out of the vehicle so that they could perform an "inventory search," to which she stated that she did not feel well. After repeating their request, the officers saw the passenger "physically shaking and clutching at a black handbag." As she got out of the vehicle, the passenger stated to the officers that she was pregnant, and that she was "possibly going to vomit." The officers then saw the passenger stick her fingers in her mouth in an apparent attempt to induce vomiting. While walking f