Fitzpatrick v. Com., SJC-10353
Decision Date | 21 April 2009 |
Docket Number | SJC-10353 |
Citation | 453 Mass. 1014,904 N.E.2d 426 |
Parties | Joshua FITZPATRICK v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
RESCRIPT.
Joshua Fitzpatrick appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
Fitzpatrick was charged in the Juvenile Court with offenses that he allegedly committed while under the age of seventeen, but for which he was apprehended after his eighteenth birthday. After a hearing at which three alleged victims testified, a judge in the Juvenile Court found both that there was probable cause and that it was in the interest of the public that Fitzpatrick be charged as an adult. G.L. c. 119, § 72A. The judge did not make written or oral subsidiary findings. The juvenile charges were dismissed, and Fitzpatrick was indicted for various offenses. He filed a motion in the Superior Court to stay the proceedings and to remand the matter to the Juvenile Court for findings to determine whether there was record support for the Juvenile Court judge's order. That motion was denied, as was Fitzpatrick's subsequent motion to dismiss the indictments for lack of jurisdiction. Fitzpatrick's petition to the county court challenged these interlocutory rulings.
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means."1 Fitzpatrick has not met his burden under the rule. 2 Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009, 770 N.E.2d 469 (2002). Fitzpatrick argues that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction because the Juvenile Court judge's decision was without "record support ... that the interests of the public require adult prosecution rather than discharge," Commonwealth v. Davis, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 410, 415-416, 777 N.E.2d 1275 (2002), and that trying him in a court that lacks jurisdiction would give rise to "irreversible" error. That is incorrect. If Fitzpatrick is convicted of one or more offenses, any error can be adequately remedied in his direct appeal. The decision to transfer a case pursuant to G.L. c. 119, § 72A, is subject to appellate review after a conviction in the Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Bousquet, 407 Mass. 854, 857-860, 556 N.E.2d 37 (1990). Moreover, "this court and the Appeals Court have routinely addressed subject matter jurisdiction claims on direct appeal following conviction," Gouin v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1013, 1013, 792 N.E.2d 115 (2003), and cases cited, and, where appropriate, have reversed convictions on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Grace, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 905, 907, 681 N.E.2d 1265 (1997), and cases cited (District Court lacked jurisdiction to try drug-related conspiracy charge); Commonwealth v. Rowe, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 927, 465 N.E.2d 1220 (1984) ( ); Commonwealth v. Burns, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 194, 195-196, 392 N.E.2d 865 (1979), and cases cited (trial court lacked jurisdiction where complaint failed to allege every element of crime charged). Fitzpatrick offers no reason why similar relief, if warranted, would be inadequate in his case. The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying extraordinary relief in these circumstances.3
Judgment affirmed.
1. Fitzpatrick also filed a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court pending this appeal. In light of the result we reach today, we take no action on the motion to stay.
2. There exists an exception to this rule in cases where a "criminal defendant raises a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit." Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175, 546 N.E.2d 876 (1989). A defendant is entitled to raise such a claim before retrial. Id. We have declined, however, to extend this limited exception to other types of claims. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Commonwealth, 450 Mass. 1003, 876 N.E.2d 402 (2007) (statute of limitations); Bateman v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1024, 868 N.E.2d 606 (2007) ( ); Cousin v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1046, 817 N.E.2d 767 (2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ulla U. v. Commonwealth
...that the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction likewise is not immediately appealable. See Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1014, 1015, 904 N.E.2d 426 (2009) ; Gouin v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1013, 1013, 792 N.E.2d 115 (2003).That the juvenile seeks to appeal from a ......
-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth
...Garden v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1018, 1019, 957 N.E.2d 222 (2011) (statute of limitations claim), Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1014, 1015, 904 N.E.2d 426 (2009) (jurisdictional claim), Bateman v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1024, 1024-1025, 868 N.E.2d 606 (2007) (challenge to suffic......
-
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.
...the plaintiff could have obtained review pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, is not properly before us. Compare Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1014, 1015, 904 N.E.2d 426 (2009) (rejecting that avenue for review of whether Juvenile Court judge erred in determining that defendant should be ......
-
Pfeiffer v. Commonwealth
...876 (1989). But we have routinely declined to extend the exception to claims other than double jeopardy. Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1014, 1015 n. 2, 904 N.E.2d 426 (2009), and cases cited. Pfeiffer's claim that the indictment was defective, unlike a double jeopardy claim, does n......