Commonwealth v. Brian Vines.

── Commonwealth v. Brian Vines. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 12, 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 24-P-1257 COMMONWEALTH vs. BRIAN VINES.1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of several offenses stemming from an armed robbery.2 He also was charged and subsequently convicted of committing these crimes as a habitual offender under G. L. c. 279, § 25. While his appeal was pending, he filed a motion to correct his sentences and a motion for a new trial. We have consolidated the defendant's direct appeal with his appeals from 1 Also known as Brian K. Davis. 2The defendant was convicted of assault, as a lesser included offense of armed assault with intent to murder, armed assault with intent to rob a person over the age of sixty, assault and battery on an elderly or disabled person causing serious bodily injury, armed robbery, and aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. He was acquitted of armed home invasion. the orders on these posttrial motions.3 We affirm the judgments of conviction and the orders on the postconviction motions. Background. The victim was sixty-two years old and living alone in the home where she had resided for about forty years when the defendant knocked on her door under the pretext that he wanted to contact her son, a childhood friend. The victim recognized the defendant and wrote down her son's telephone number for him. As the victim was getting the number, the defendant gained entrance into the victim's house. He then robbed, beat, and stabbed her. The assault was brutal. The victim suffered serious injuries including a foot-long laceration to her back and a slit throat. When the defendant left the premises, with only the victim's automated teller machine (ATM) card as she had little cash on hand, the victim managed to crawl to her phone and call the police. The victim identified the defendant by name to the police and, subsequently, to hospital personnel as well.4 The Commonwealth also introduced evidence that the defendant used the victim's 3 The defendant's notices of appeal also list other orders, including the order denying his second motion for a new trial, but the defendant makes no arguments about those orders and we do not further discuss them. 4 The victim knew the defendant by the name Brian Davis. There is no dispute that Brian Davis and Brian Vines are the same person. At trial, the defendant testified that his name is "Brian Davis Vines." 2 ATM card to withdraw money shortly after he left the victim's home and that forensic testing of samples of bloodstains taken from the defendant's clothing and sneakers revealed the presence of the victim's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The defendant testified at trial and admitted that he was at the victim's house but claimed that he was with another man. The defendant testified that the