Motion for Resentencing in Massachusetts First-Degree Murder Cases: What the Perez Decision Means for Families and People Seeking Parole
When someone you love is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder in Massachusetts, it’s easy to feel like there’s no hope. For decades, the law mandated life without the possibility of parole for anyone convicted of first-degree murder—no exceptions for age or circumstances. But recent court decisions have started to change that, particularly for people who committed their crimes as “emerging adults”—those who were 18, 19, or 20 years old at the time.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) July 2025 decision in Jairin Perez v. Commonwealth has clarified how motions for resentencing will work in these cases, especially after its earlier ruling in Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024). The Perez case is critical for families and advocates because it explains:
When an incarcerated person can seek resentencing to make them eligible for parole.
What procedural hurdles and risks exist (including the possibility of consecutive life sentences).
How credit for time served works—potentially making someone eligible for parole right away.
How judges should evaluate resentencing, including consideration of youth and rehabilitation.
If you’re considering working with a post-conviction lawyer to fight for your loved one’s parole eligibility, you need to understand what Perez means.
Background: From Life Without Parole to the Possibility of Parole
Jairin Perez’s Convictions
In 2002, Perez was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for a shooting that killed two people in 2001, when he was 19 years old. The law at the time required that anyone convicted of first-degree murder receive life without the possibility of parole. He was sentenced to two concurrent life-without-parole sentences.
The Mattis Breakthrough
In 2024, the SJC decided Commonwealth v. Mattis, ruling that sentencing emerging adults (18–20) to life without parole violates Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment). Under Mattis, anyone in that age group who committed murder before August 2, 2012, is now entitled to parole eligibility after 15 years.
For Perez—19 years old at the time of his offenses—this meant his original sentence was unconstitutional, and he could seek resentencing.
The Motion for Resentencing
Perez filed a motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) to vacate his unconstitutional sentences and replace them with life with the possibility of parole after 15 years on both counts. He wanted the new sentences to remain concurrent—meaning his parole eligibility date would be after 15 years.
The Commonwealth opposed, arguing that the court should hold a resentencing hearing to decide whether the sentences should be consecutive instead of concurrent. Under consecutive sentences, Perez would serve 15 years on the first conviction and then 15 years on the second—making him parole-eligible after 30 years.
The Double Jeopardy Question: Can the State Seek Harsher Structure After Mattis?
Perez argued that changing his sentences from concurrent to consecutive would violate double jeopardy principles, which generally prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense once a sentence is final.
The SJC disagreed. Here’s why:
When Perez was originally sentenced to life without parole, the difference between concurrent and consecutive life terms was meaningless—either way, he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Under Massachusetts law, if a defendant successfully challenges part of an “integrated sentencing package” (as Perez did), the judge can revisit the whole package at resentencing.
Resentencing him to consecutive life with parole terms would still be a less severe punishment than his original life-without-parole sentence, so it would not violate double jeopardy.
What this means for families: If your loved one has multiple murder convictions, the Commonwealth can—and likely will—argue for consecutive parole-eligible terms at a resentencing hearing. This can delay parole eligibility.
The Fight Over How to Fix the Sentence
Perez argued that the only unconstitutional part of his sentence was the parole ineligibility, and that the court could simply “correct the mittimus” (the formal sentencing document) to allow parole after 15 years, without holding a hearing or changing the structure of his sentences.
The SJC rejected this. The court said:
In cases involving multiple convictions as part of a single sentencing package, changing parole eligibility can affect the overall sentence structure.
Judges need the opportunity to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive in light of the new parole eligibility rules.
A Rule 30 resentencing hearing is the correct process, not a simple paperwork correction.
What this means for families: If your loved one was convicted of multiple murders, expect a full resentencing hearing—not just an administrative change. This means preparing evidence and arguments for why the sentences should run concurrently.
The Credit for Time Served Victory
This is where Perez truly matters for families seeking parole eligibility.
The Commonwealth argued that if Perez got consecutive sentences, he would have to serve 15 years on each—meaning parole eligibility after 30 years total. Perez had been in prison for over 23 years, so under that theory, he’d still have about 7 years to go before a parole hearing.
The SJC rejected that argument. It held that:
Double jeopardy principles require full credit for time served on each sentence.
Because Perez had been serving his concurrent sentences for over 23 years, he had already served more than the 15 years required for each count.
Even if resentenced to consecutive life-with-parole terms, he would be immediately eligible for parole.
This is huge. It means that for people serving multiple concurrent life-without-parole sentences that become parole-eligible after Mattis, credit applies separately to each count.
The Practical Impact: Immediate Parole Hearings for Many
For some incarcerated people, Perez means that:
They can seek resentencing to life with parole under Mattis.
Even if the judge imposes consecutive terms, if they have already served more than the required time on each term, they may be parole-eligible right away.
This applies even to those with multiple counts of first-degree murder, as long as they’ve already served the required time on each.
What Happens at a Resentencing Hearing
The SJC in Perez reaffirmed that resentencing judges must consider not just the crime, but also:
The Miller factors (from Miller v. Alabama), which focus on youth-related mitigating circumstances:
Age and its hallmark features—immaturity, impulsivity, poor risk assessment.
Family and home environment.
Circumstances of the offense, including peer/familial pressure.
Whether youth-related incompetencies affected charging or defense.
Potential for rehabilitation.
Psychological state at the time of the offense.
Post-sentencing conduct—both positive (rehabilitation, education, work history) and negative (disciplinary record).
For families and post-conviction lawyers, this means gathering a comprehensive resentencing package that humanizes the defendant and shows growth, maturity, and readiness for reintegration.
Steps Families Can Take Now
If your incarcerated loved one was:
Convicted of first-degree murder,
Was 18, 19, or 20 at the time of the offense,
And the offense occurred before August 2, 2012,
…they may be entitled to a motion for resentencing under Mattis, and Perez could significantly strengthen their case.
Here’s what to do:
Consult an experienced post-conviction lawyer – This area of law is complex, and the procedural rules matter.
Gather records – Court docket, sentencing transcript, mittimus, prison records showing time served.
Document rehabilitation – Certificates, work records, letters of support, disciplinary record.
Prepare for a resentencing hearing – The Commonwealth can push for consecutive sentences; you must be ready to argue for concurrent.
Calculate credit for time served – If your loved one has already served more than the required parole eligibility period on each sentence, they could be immediately eligible for a parole hearing.
Why You Need a Lawyer Who Understands Motions for Resentencing
The Perez decision shows that a motion for resentencing is not just a formality—it’s a contested legal proceeding with major consequences for parole eligibility. The Commonwealth may push for a structure that delays parole for years. A skilled Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer or post-conviction lawyer can:
Argue for concurrent sentences to maximize early parole eligibility.
Ensure full credit for time served is applied.
Present strong evidence under the Miller factors.
Challenge any Commonwealth effort to use the resentencing hearing as a backdoor way to extend incarceration.
Conclusion: Perez Opens the Door—But You Must Walk Through It
The Perez ruling confirms that emerging adults serving life without parole for first-degree murder can use a motion for resentencing to obtain parole eligibility. Even for those with multiple counts, credit for time served may make them eligible immediately—if the motion is properly litigated.
For families, this is a moment of opportunity. But it requires preparation, legal strategy, and experienced advocacy to navigate resentencing hearings, fight for concurrent sentences, and present a compelling case for release.
If your loved one is serving a life sentence for a crime committed at 18–20 years old before August 2, 2012, now is the time to act.