Commonwealth v. Jonathan Mazzilli.

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-1139

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JONATHAN MAZZILLI.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

A District Court jury found the defendant guilty of

operating a motor vehicle while uninsured in violation of G. L.

c. 90, § 34J, being a motor vehicle operator and refusing to

identify oneself in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 25, and a number

plate violation to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle in

violation of G. L. c. 90, § 23. The defendant asserts various

constitutional and common-law claims. We affirm.

All of the defendant's arguments are unsupported by

reasoned analysis or relevant authority and, as such, fail to

rise to the level of adequate appellate argument as required by

Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628

(2019). However, in reviewing the record and considering the
defendant's contentions, see Commonwealth v. Shakespeare, 493

Mass. 67, 92-93 (2023) (preserved argument of constitutional

dimension reviewed for error, and if so, whether error was

harmless beyond reasonable doubt), we discern no error.

Contrary to the defendant's arguments as we understand them,

neither the requirement of compulsory motor vehicle insurance

nor that of displaying a license plate on a motor vehicle

violate the right to travel or any other constitutional right.

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the

convictions.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin,
D'Angelo & Toone, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: September 24, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

2