Diggs v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Diggs v. Commonwealth

711 N.E.2d 880, 429 Mass. 1019, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 387

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 711 N.E.2d 880 (Diggs 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

Diggs v. Commonwealth, 711 N.E.2d 880, 429 Mass. 1019, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 387 (Mass. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

A single justice of this court denied the petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and the petitioner appealed. As the petitioner’s direct appeal from his convictions is currently pending before the Appeals Court, he has availed himself of an adequate and effective remedy other than a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, through which he may seek the requested relief. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996), and cases cited. “We have emphasized that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and may not be sought as a substitute for normal appellate review. Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977). Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied.” Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 398 Mass. 800, 802 (1986). Notwithstanding his pro se status, the petitioner is held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel. Maza v. Commonwealth, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the single justice.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on brief.

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

A single justice of this court denied the petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and the petitioner appealed. As the petitioner’s direct appeal from his convictions is currently pending before the Appeals Court, he has availed himself of an adequate and effective remedy other than a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, through which he may seek the requested relief. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996), and cases cited. “We have emphasized that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and may not be sought as a substitute for normal appellate review. Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977). Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied.” Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 398 Mass. 800, 802 (1986). Notwithstanding his pro se status, the petitioner is held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel. Maza v. Commonwealth, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the single justice.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 N.E.2d 880, 429 Mass. 1019, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diggs-v-commonwealth-mass-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack