Commonwealth v. Herbert
| Decision Date | 12 December 2005 |
| Citation | 838 N.E.2d 1236,445 Mass. 1018 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Roger C. HERBERT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
RESCRIPT.
The defendant, Roger C. Herbert, was convicted of murder in the first degree and armed robbery, and we affirmed the convictions. Commonwealth v. Herbert, 421 Mass. 307, 656 N.E.2d 899 (1995). Herbert subsequently filed in the Superior Court a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Pursuant to the gatekeeper provision of G.L. c. 278, § 33E, Herbert applied to a single justice of this court for leave to appeal from the denial of the motion. The single justice denied the application on the separate and independent grounds that it was untimely, Mains v. Commonwealth, 433 Mass. 30, 36 n. 10, 739 N.E.2d 1125 (2000), and that it presented no "new and substantial question" warranting leave to appeal. Herbert has appealed from the single justice's ruling.
The Commonwealth has moved to dismiss Herbert's appeal. It is well established that "the decision of the single justice, acting as a gatekeeper pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 33E, is `final and unreviewable.'" Commonwealth v. Perez, 442 Mass. 1019, 1019, 813 N.E.2d 80 (2004), quoting Napolitano v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 240, 241, 733 N.E.2d 80 (2000). In particular, Herbert's claim that he could not previously raise his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because he had the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal, see Commonwealth v. Egardo, 426 Mass. 48, 49-50, 686 N.E.2d 432 (1997), "ignores not only the nature of plenary review, see G.L. c. 278, § 33E, but also the single justice's determination as gatekeeper that the claim of ineffective assistance was not substantial." Commonwealth v. Scott, 437 Mass. 1008, 1008, 770 N.E.2d 474 (2002). Herbert cannot appeal to the full court.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herbert v. Dickhaut
...sought to appeal the gatekeeper's decision to the full SJC, which dismissed his appeal on December 12, 2005. See Commonwealth v. Herbert, 445 Mass. 1018, 838 N.E.2d 1236 (2005). Herbert filed his habeas petition in this court twenty-five days later on January 5, 2006. 3 II. ANALYSIS The tim......
-
Carl Drew v. Maceachern
...922 N.E.2d 768, 771 (2010) (referring to the single justice in a section 33E petition as the gatekeeper); Commonwealth v. Herbert, 445 Mass. 1018, 838 N.E.2d 1236, 1237 (2005) (rescript) (same). If the single justice determines that the petitioner raises both “new and substantial” issues, t......
-
Gaskins v. Duval
...leave to appeal. While the single justice denied the petition (a ruling that was "final and unreviewable," Commonwealth v. Herbert, 445 Mass. 1018, 1018, 838 N.E.2d 1236 (2005)), there is no question but that the claims were presented in the courts of the Commonwealth. See Supp. Answer, Vol......
-
Com. v. Stote
...of the single justice, acting as a gatekeeper pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 33E, is `final and unreviewable.'" Commonwealth v. Herbert, 445 Mass. 1018, 1018, 838 N.E.2d 1236 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Perez, 442 Mass. 1019, 1019, 813 N.E.2d 497 2. Although the assistant district attorney ......