Hines v. Superior Court

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hines v. Superior Court

668 N.E.2d 323, 423 Mass. 1005, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 169

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 668 N.E.2d 323 (Hines v. Superior Court) 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

Hines v. Superior Court, 668 N.E.2d 323, 423 Mass. 1005, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 169 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner, who was convicted in 1982, filed a petition in the county court in 1995, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), seeking relief from his conviction. He appeals from the judgment of a single justice denying his petition without a hearing.

It is axiomatic that relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available where the alleged error or abuse can adequately and effectively be remedied through the normal appellate process or through some other available method of review. McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), and cases cited. Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 106-107 (1989). DuPont v. Superior Court, 401 Mass. 122 (1987). The errors alleged by the petitioner in this case — i.e., the selection of a male juror instead of a female to serve as the foreperson, and the trial judge’s allegedly inferior treatment of females on the jury — could have been raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal or in an appropriate postconviction motion. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, 378 Mass. 900 (1979). The single justice correctly denied the petition, without a hearing, in light of the availability of these other routes which could have been pursued. Caggiano v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 1004, 1005 (1990). Simmons v. Commonwealth, 403 Mass. 1004 (1988). Moreover, it appears that the petition is meritless and the claims unsupported by this record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner, who was convicted in 1982, filed a petition in the county court in 1995, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), seeking relief from his conviction. He appeals from the judgment of a single justice denying his petition without a hearing.

It is axiomatic that relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available where the alleged error or abuse can adequately and effectively be remedied through the normal appellate process or through some other available method of review. McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), and cases cited. Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 106-107 (1989). DuPont v. Superior Court, 401 Mass. 122 (1987). The errors alleged by the petitioner in this case — i.e., the selection of a male juror instead of a female to serve as the foreperson, and the trial judge’s allegedly inferior treatment of females on the jury — could have been raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal or in an appropriate postconviction motion. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, 378 Mass. 900 (1979). The single justice correctly denied the petition, without a hearing, in light of the availability of these other routes which could have been pursued. Caggiano v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 1004, 1005 (1990). Simmons v. Commonwealth, 403 Mass. 1004 (1988). Moreover, it appears that the petition is meritless and the claims unsupported by this record.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 N.E.2d 323, 423 Mass. 1005, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-superior-court-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack