Cruthird v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cruthird v. Commonwealth

826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1002, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 173

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 N.E.2d 199 (Cruthird 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

Cruthird v. Commonwealth, 826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1002, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 173 (Mass. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner filed his petition in the county court in 2004. In it he claimed that the Appeals Court, when it affirmed his convictions on direct appeal four years earlier, see Commonwealth v. Cruthird, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 1115, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1027 (2000), violated his constitutionally protected right to represent himself on appeal. Before filing his petition, he pressed the same claim in a petition for a rehearing in the Appeals Court and in an application for further appellate review in this court, both of which were denied. The single justice was correct to deny the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition against this backdrop. Our general superintendence power cannot be invoked merely in an attempt to obtain yet another layer of review after the normal process has run its course.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner filed his petition in the county court in 2004. In it he claimed that the Appeals Court, when it affirmed his convictions on direct appeal four years earlier, see Commonwealth v. Cruthird, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 1115, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1027 (2000), violated his constitutionally protected right to represent himself on appeal. Before filing his petition, he pressed the same claim in a petition for a rehearing in the Appeals Court and in an application for further appellate review in this court, both of which were denied. The single justice was correct to deny the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition against this backdrop. Our general superintendence power cannot be invoked merely in an attempt to obtain yet another layer of review after the normal process has run its course.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1002, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruthird-v-commonwealth-mass-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack