Crowell v. Commonwealth

225 N.E.2d 330, 352 Mass. 288, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 797
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 31, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 225 N.E.2d 330 (Crowell v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crowell v. Commonwealth, 225 N.E.2d 330, 352 Mass. 288, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 797 (Mass. 1967).

Opinion

Wilkins, C.J.

The petitioner is serving a sentence in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole following a conviction for several crimes as appears in the original papers on which this case is brought before us. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court. It alleges that his constitutional rights were violated because he was denied the assistance of counsel (1) during police interrogation and (2) in the Municipal Court of West Roxbury, where he was bound over to the grand jury without hearing. The petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ruling was right.

*289 Habeas corpus cannot be employed as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure, and so, in general, is not available where there is a remedy by writ of error or appeal. Crystal, petitioner, 330 Mass. 583, 590. See O’Leary, petitioner, 325 Mass. 179, 184. The petitioner does have a remedy by writ of error. In many cases the issue of lack of representation by counsel has been raised on writ of error. See Allen v. Commonwealth, 324 Mass. 558; Lindsey v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 1; Jones v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 169; Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 471. It is not a formidable objection that the petitioner pleaded guilty. See DeGolyer v. Commonwealth, 314 Mass. 626.

The petitioner relies exclusively on O’Leary, petitioner, 325 Mass. 179, supra, where a writ of habeas corpus was granted to a boy who had been deprived of his liberty without due process of law, because he had not been given notice of the proceedings, and so had been deprived of opportunity to defend. As was pointed out (p. 182) there was, in truth, no real hearing, and the proceedings were void (p. 184). In the case at bar the proceedings were not void.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pierce
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2026
McBRADY BETTS
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2025
EDWARD PIERCE
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2025
Commonwealth v. Valerio
119 N.E.3d 355 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2018)
In re Holloman
111 N.E.3d 1111 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2018)
Doyle v. Commonwealth
32 N.E.3d 1256 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)
Stevens v. Commonwealth
29 Mass. L. Rptr. 320 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2011)
Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Pires
777 N.E.2d 1231 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2002)
Crowley
766 N.E.2d 513 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2002)
Kauffman
413 Mass. 1010 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1992)
Simmons v. Commonwealth
528 N.E.2d 875 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1988)
Picard v. Connor
404 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 N.E.2d 330, 352 Mass. 288, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowell-v-commonwealth-mass-1967.