Commonwealth v. Sandro Mathieu.

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

23-P-1254

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

SANDRO MATHIEU.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Sandro Mathieu, appeals from an order of the

Appellate Division of the District Court dismissing his appeal.

Discerning no error or abuse of discretion in the action of the

Appellate Division, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a citation issued by a

Massachusetts State police trooper to the defendant for

obstructing a stationary emergency vehicle. See G. L. c. 89,

§ 7C (b). After a hearing, a magistrate of the District Court

found the defendant responsible for the cited violation. The

defendant appealed to the Appellate Division of the District

Court, which dismissed the appeal for failure to present an

issue for appellate review. The defendant, pro se, now appeals
to this court, maintaining his innocence and asserting that the

trooper who issued the citation acted in a discriminatory manner

in issuing the underlying citation.

An appellant, the defendant here, bears the burden of

presenting appellate arguments and producing a record appendix

that are adequate for appellate review. See Mass. R. A. P.

16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019); Mass.

R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019). The

rule "is more than a 'mere technicality. It is founded on the

sound principle that the right of a party to have this court

consider a point entails a duty; that duty is to assist the

court with argument and appropriate citation of authority.'"

Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995), quoting

Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 14 (1958).

The defendant's failure to present a proper appellate

argument and factual record inhibits review of this case.1

Without a proper record, we cannot evaluate the Appellate

Division judges' conclusion that "the defendant . . . failed to

1 While we recognize the inherent challenges in proceeding
pro se, both parties represented by counsel and pro se litigants
are required to present materials necessary for appellate
review. See Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710,
IAFF, 408 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.4 (1990) ("Although some leniency
is appropriate in determining whether pro se litigants have
complied with rules of procedure, the rules nevertheless bind
pro se litigants as all other litigants").

2
present an issue of law for appellate review." See Mass.

R. A. P. 16 (a) (9); Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a). Therefore, we

affirm the Appellate Division's dismissal of the defendant's

appeal. See Spivey v. Neitlich, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 742, 744

(2003) ("We apply the abuse of discretion standard to determine

whether the judge was warranted in dismissing the appeal").

Order dismissing appeal
affirmed.

By the Court (Massing,
Hershfang & Tan, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: April 25, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

3