Esteves v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 25 April 2001 |
Parties | (Mass. 2001) JOHN ESTEVES vs. COMMONWEALTH. 8491 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Summary: Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice, Superintendence of inferior courts. Constitutional Law, Speedy trial, Double jeopardy.
John Esteves (petitioner) appeals under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from a single justice's denial of a request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. A Superior Court judge had denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss certain indictments, based on the judge's conclusions that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial had not been violated, and that the petitioner had not made a "showing of prejudicial delay."
The Superior Court judge's denial of the motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order for purposes of rule 2:21 (1). We turn to the petitioner's contention that the alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial cannot be effectively remedied by appellate review after trial. He argues that, by the time appellate review is provided, he will have experienced the "major evils" ("continued anxiety, community suspicion and other social and economic disabilities") from which, he claims, the right to a speedy trial is to protect him. He also asserts that his claim is similar to one based on double jeopardy principles that protect against being put to trial twice for the same offense, because a refusal to review the claim before trial would result in the irremediable denial of the right. See Costarelli v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. 677, 680 (1978). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the single justice.
Although the petitioner contends his claim is comparable to one based on double jeopardy principles, we recognize a definitive distinction: his claim concerns his right to a speedy trial, rather than the right not to be tried. If one is tried and convicted and if we determine that the right to a speedy trial had been violated, we may direct that an order be entered allowing a motion to dismiss the indictments. See Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 411 Mass. 503, 510 (1992). The double jeopardy principles on which the petitioner relies address whether one should be put to trial; whereas speedy trial principles concern whether a trial is timely, not whether it should be held at all.
Furthermore, the petitioner does not refer to, nor have we identified, a practice by which this court, in similar cases, has reviewed the pretrial presentation of speedy trial violation claims to a single justice.1 This absence is not dispositive, but it is instructive. It is also significant that we have, however, considered speedy trial claims that have come to us along other paths. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Amidon, 428 Mass. 1005 (1998) ( ); Commonwealth v. Lasher, 428 Mass. 202 (1998) (same); Commonwealth v. Grant, 418 Mass. 76 (1994) ( ); Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 411 Mass. 503 (1992) (same); Commonwealth v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63 (1991) ( ); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 401 Mass. 698 (1988) ( ); Commonwealth v. DelVerde, 398 Mass. 288 (1986) ( ); Commonwealth v. Farris, 390 Mass. 300 (1983) ( ); Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 285, 286, 288 n.4 (1983) ( ); Bishop v. Commonwealth, 352 Mass. 258, 259 (1967) ( ). The petitioner does rely on a footnote in Burton v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1008, 1008 n.1 (2000), indicating that the claim of a violation of his rights to a speedy trial and due process of law was, according to the single justice who denied the request for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, similar to a double jeopardy claim and that it was appropriate to address the merits. The fact that the single justice chose to do so in that instance does not compel us to decide that the single justice should have done so in this case, or must do so in every instance. We also note that although the petitioner obtained review, he did not obtain relief. Id. at 1009.
Our conclusion is reinforced by our determination that the "denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 is not appealable . . . until after trial." Ventresco v. Commonwealth, 409 Mass. 82, 83 (1991). See Epps v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 97, 99 (1994), citing Ventresco v. Commonwealth, supra ( ). See also Pare v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 216, 217 (1995), quoting Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198 (1980) ( ). Moreover, if the single justice does not determine that the denial of a motion to dismiss meets the standard specified in Morrissette v. Commonwealth, supra ( ), and neither decides the issue nor reports the matter to the full court, the petitioner cannot receive review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a motion to dismiss....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth
...us to decide that the single justice should have done so in this case, or must do so in every instance." Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003, 1004, 746 N.E.2d 510 (2001). See Watkins, 469 Mass. at 1006, 12 N.E.3d 1009 (decision to transfer proceedings from Juvenile Court to Superior Cou......
-
Glawson v. Com.
...Mass. 1015, 771 N.E.2d 149 (2002); Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022, 681 N.E.2d 815 (1997). See also Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003, 1004, 746 N.E.2d 510 (2001) (violation of speedy trial right remediable in ordinary course of 2. Habeas corpus. Glawson also seeks release fr......
-
Owens v. Commonwealth
...apply to all motions to dismiss, including those, like the petitioner's, that raise speedy trial claims. See Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003, 1005, 746 N.E.2d 510 (2001). Accord Grand–Pierre v. Commonwealth, 461 Mass. 1003, 1004, 958 N.E.2d 833 (2011); Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 4......
-
Com. v. Narea
...extraordinary power of general superintendence where exceptional circumstances are not present. See e.g., Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003, 1004, 746 N.E.2d 510 (2001) (fact that single justice in separate case raising similar issue exercised discretion and decided merits of petition......