Pina v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 22 February 2023
• Docket Number: SJC-12758
• Citation: 491 Mass. 1020,202 N.E.3d 1217
• Parties: Ruben PINA v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

491 Mass. 1020

202 N.E.3d 1217

Ruben PINA

v.COMMONWEALTH.

SJC-12758

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

February 22, 2023

The case was submitted on briefs.

James P. McKenna, Worcester, for the petitioner.

Laura A. McLaughlin, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

RESCRIPT

The petitioner, Ruben Pina, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

A jury convicted Pina of several crimes, including armed assault with intent to murder, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 18 (b ) ; assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (c ) (1) ; and commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 18B. The firearm at the root of the charges was recovered during a motor vehicle search at which Pina was not present and that also led to charges in a separate case against a different individual, Danilo Depina. In that case, Depina successfully moved to suppress the firearm on the basis that it had been illegally seized, and the Commonwealth thereafter nolle prossed the charges against Depina. Several years later, Pina filed, in Depina's case, a "Motion Requesting Court Order to Norfolk DA's Office to Produce and Provide Party of Interest with a Copy of all Police Evidence, Tests, and Chain of Custody Reports," which a judge in the trial court denied.

Pina thereafter sought to appeal the ruling to a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. On the basis that the Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, because there had been a final disposition in the underlying case in the trial court, the filing was transferred to the county court and treated as a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. In the petition, Pina argued that he was a "party of interest" in Depina's case because the firearm at the root of the charges against Pina was seized from Depina. Furthermore, Pina argued, he had, under the circumstances, "automatic standing" to petition the district attorney's office that had prosecuted Depina to produce all evidence related to the firearm. A single justice denied the petition, noting that Pina has no substantive right to obtain discovery in Depina's case and that to the extent Pina seeks to challenge his own conviction, the proper route to do that is to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court.

Pina appeals, and has now changed tack, arguing that he should be allowed to "intervene" in Depina's case. This is a somewhat...