Man already paroled for murdering somebody in Chinatown when he was 17 to get second parole hearing on whether he should be freed on lesser charges

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a man who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for a triple shooting when he was 17 should get an immediate parole hearing on the lesser charges that are keeping him behind bars even after he was paroled on the murder charge.

Sunil Sharma was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 15 years in 1999 for a 1996 shooting at the now closed Rainbow Restaurant at Oxford and Beach streets in which he shot an 18-year-old Medford High School student in the heart, killing her, and her two friends, who survived - after getting into an argument with one of her friends and then coming back with a gun he had hidden under a car outside.

Sharma was also sentenced to seven to ten years on two counts of armed assault with intent to murder - the sentence for which would only start would he be paroled for the murder.

Sharma was paroled on the murder charge in 2019. He then appealed his new sentence on the armed-assault charges, arguing it was unfair to keep him locked up any longer, because he's already spent the equivalent amount of time behind bars for the second sentence. A Suffolk Superior Court judge disagreed and declined to order a parole hearing on the lesser counts.

In a ruling today, the state's highest court ruled against Sharma's argument that his sentence - life, possibly followed by parole and then another, shorter sentence - was disproportionate to the crimes for which he was convicted. The court noted he didn't just end one young woman's life - he tried to kill two other people and it's hardly the judge's fault that his aim wasn't good enough to end their lives as well.

But, the court continued, the fact that Sharma was a minor at the time is a consideration - both it and the US Supreme Court have held that minors cannot be sentenced the same way for capital offenses as adults; as an example, at a minimum, they need a separate hearing to determine whether they should be sent away for life on a first-degree conviction.

In regard to the legality of the defendant's sentences, we conclude that the motion judge failed to consider the specific circumstances and unique characteristics of the defendant as a juvenile. Accordingly, we remand for a hearing to consider whether the defendant's sentences comport with art. 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights [which bans cruel and unusual punishment] and, if necessary, resentencing.