Kines v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Kines v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business

814 N.E.2d 1079, 442 Mass. 1025, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 575

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 814 N.E.2d 1079 (Kines v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business) 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

Kines v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business, 814 N.E.2d 1079, 442 Mass. 1025, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 575 (Mass. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In May of 2002, a judge in the Superior Court denied Rasheed’s most recent amended motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. R 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). Rasheed attempted to appeal from that denial to the Appeals Court, but his notice of appeal was untimely. He then filed a motion in the Appeals Court, requesting leave to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to Mass. R. A. R 14 (b), as amended, 378 Mass. 939 (1979). A single justice of the Appeals Court denied the motion. Instead of appealing from that decision to a panel of the Appeals Court, Rasheed filed two petitions pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, each requesting review of the denial of his motion for a new trial on the merits. Both petitions were denied, and Rasheed appealed from both denials. In Rasheed v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 1027 (2003), we affirmed the denial of one of Rasheed’s petitions on the ground that he had an adequate alternative remedy to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3: he “could have appealed to a panel of the Appeals Court from the Appeals Court’s single justice’s denial of his motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.” Id. See Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996). For the same reason, we now affirm the denial of his other petition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

In May of 2002, a judge in the Superior Court denied Rasheed’s most recent amended motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. R 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). Rasheed attempted to appeal from that denial to the Appeals Court, but his notice of appeal was untimely. He then filed a motion in the Appeals Court, requesting leave to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to Mass. R. A. R 14 (b), as amended, 378 Mass. 939 (1979). A single justice of the Appeals Court denied the motion. Instead of appealing from that decision to a panel of the Appeals Court, Rasheed filed two petitions pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, each requesting review of the denial of his motion for a new trial on the merits. Both petitions were denied, and Rasheed appealed from both denials. In Rasheed v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 1027 (2003), we affirmed the denial of one of Rasheed’s petitions on the ground that he had an adequate alternative remedy to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3: he “could have appealed to a panel of the Appeals Court from the Appeals Court’s single justice’s denial of his motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.” Id. See Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996). For the same reason, we now affirm the denial of his other petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 N.E.2d 1079, 442 Mass. 1025, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kines-v-clerk-of-the-superior-court-for-criminal-business-mass-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack