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.