🚗 Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Second Motion to Withdraw OUI Guilty Pleas

On November 3, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a District Court judge’s denial of Ryan S. McKenna’s second motion to withdraw guilty pleas entered in 2016 to two operating-under-the-influence (OUI) charges. The decision, issued under Rule 23.0, underscores the limits of successive post-conviction challenges when the same claims have already been raised and rejected.

McKenna was charged with OUI in July 2015 and again in March 2016. He pleaded guilty to both offenses in April 2016. In 2021 he moved for a new trial, arguing that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known a 2015 breathalyzer result would later be deemed inadmissible. A judge denied that motion after a nonevidentiary hearing; no appeal followed.

In December 2025 McKenna filed a second motion raising the same plea-withdrawal claim. After the Commonwealth opposed it, a different judge held an evidentiary hearing in early 2026, heard McKenna’s testimony, and denied the motion with written findings.

On appeal, McKenna contended that the second judge mishandled the breathalyzer and plea issues, wrongly applied direct estoppel, and conducted the hearing improperly. The Appeals Court rejected each argument.

Direct estoppel barred relitigation: the identical claim had been litigated and determined in the 2021 motion, the determination was essential to the convictions, and McKenna had an opportunity for review that he declined to pursue. A notice from the Executive Office of the Trial Court stating that the 2015 breathalyzer result was inadmissible—offered as “newly discovered evidence”—was not new. It had been attached as an exhibit to the Commonwealth’s opposition served on McKenna in July 2021, months before the first hearing.

Even on the merits, the court found no error. The judge applied the relevant factors from Commonwealth v. Hallinan and assessed whether there was a reasonable probability McKenna would have gone to trial had he known of the government misconduct. Given the favorable disposition he received, the judge expressly discredited his testimony that the breathalyzer result was decisive. Substantial independent evidence of impairment existed in both incidents (odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, admissions of drinking, and failed field sobriety tests).

The evidentiary hearing itself was properly conducted: McKenna testified and was cross-examined, raised no objection to the procedure, and offered no other witnesses. The absence of an affidavit from plea counsel further supported the judge’s discretion to deny the motion.

The panel (Meade, Hershfang, and Hillman, JJ.) therefore affirmed the January 6, 2026 order denying the second motion for a new trial. The ruling illustrates both the preclusive effect of earlier post-conviction litigation and the continuing weight of non-breathalyzer evidence in OUI cases even after questions arise about a particular testing device.