Commonwealth v. Dykens
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to several crimes in connection with an arrest for attempted burglary and other offenses. Appellant moved to vacate two of his convictions of attempted armed burglary and his conviction of possessing a burglarious tool or implement pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), asserting (1) the convictions of attempted burglary were duplicative, and (2) his conviction for possessing a burglarious instrument should be vacated because the indictment failed to state a crime. The superior court judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding (1) Appellant’s multiple convictions and punishments for attempted armed burglary were for separate attempts, and therefore, his multiple convictions and punishments did not violate double jeopardy; but (2) the indictment charging possession of a burglarious tool or implement failed to allege a crime, and therefore, Appellant’s conviction must be vacated.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.