Durakowski v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Durakowski v. Commonwealth

876 N.E.2d 419, 450 Mass. 1005, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 729

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 9, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 876 N.E.2d 419 (Durakowski 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

Durakowski v. Commonwealth, 876 N.E.2d 419, 450 Mass. 1005, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 729 (Mass. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner, John Durakowski, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The petitioner filed his petition in the county court after a judge in the underlying case in the trial court denied his renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty after discharge of the jury, motion for reconsideration, and motion to have the trial judge recuse herself. Although it appears that the petitioner’s “Memorandum of Law -and, Record of Appendix” filed with this court is intended to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), he does not appear to be challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Regardless whether rule 2:21 applies, however, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he cannot otherwise obtain adequate appellate review. See Norris v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1007 (2006); Sterling v. Delmonico, 443 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2005). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner, John Durakowski, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The petitioner filed his petition in the county court after a judge in the underlying case in the trial court denied his renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty after discharge of the jury, motion for reconsideration, and motion to have the trial judge recuse herself. Although it appears that the petitioner’s “Memorandum of Law -and, Record of Appendix” filed with this court is intended to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), he does not appear to be challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Regardless whether rule 2:21 applies, however, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he cannot otherwise obtain adequate appellate review. See Norris v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1007 (2006); Sterling v. Delmonico, 443 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2005). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 N.E.2d 419, 450 Mass. 1005, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durakowski-v-commonwealth-mass-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack