Commonwealth v. Eduardo Rodriguez.

── Commonwealth v. Eduardo Rodriguez. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 26, 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-67 COMMONWEALTH vs. EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 In 2018, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of aggravated rape, kidnapping, indecent assault and battery, and unarmed robbery.1 In a subsequent jury-waived trial, the trial judge found the defendant guilty of being a subsequent offender with respect to the aggravated rape convictions. In 2022, a panel of this court affirmed the defendant's convictions in an unpublished decision. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2022). The self-represented defendant now appeals a Superior Court judge's orders denying his motions for postconviction discovery and appointment of postconviction counsel. We affirm. 1 As a lesser included offense of armed robbery.  Discussion. 1. Postconviction discovery. In December 2024, the defendant filed a pro se motion seeking records, including from the Somerville Police Department,2 of "any prior allegations of a sexual assault made by [the victim]."3 The defendant contends that the motion judge abused his discretion by denying the defendant's motion for postconviction discovery. See Commonwealth v. Ware, 471 Mass. 85, 94-96 (2015). We disagree. "The purpose of postconviction discovery is to allow a defendant to gather evidence to support an apparently meritorious claim . . . [where] the evidence that can be adduced to support the claim is unknown to the court (quotation and citation omitted)." Ware, 471 Mass. at 94. "When requesting such discovery, a defendant by affidavit must make a sufficient showing that the discovery is reasonably likely to uncover evidence that might warrant granting a new trial" (quotation and citation omitted). Id. 2 The defendant alleged in his motion that the victim had moved from Somerville to Boston, where the rape occurred. 3 After trial, the defendant made a request under the State public records law, G. L. c. 66, § 10, to the Somerville Police Department "for any and all reports, investigations, and information pertaining to [the victim] or her prior allegations." The Somerville Police Department responded that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records without a court order. 2  Here, the defendant made no showing that records of prior sexual assaults alleged by the victim existed or were likely to warrant granting a new trial. The defendant's affidavit supporting the motion for discovery asserted only that there were "no other means" by which he could obtain the requested information. To the extent the defendant argued in his motion that an entry in a medical record from his trial demonstrated that the victim was sexually assaulted previously, we agree with the motion judge that, in context, "[the phrase] '[s]ubsequent encounter' has nothing t