King v. Commonwealth

713 N.E.2d 373, 430 Mass. 1002, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 549
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided August 3, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Corey J. King (petitioner) appeals, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial of a petition for relief, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. A District Court judge had denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss, in which he claimed that his witnesses were not available and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. An earlier dismissal request of his, based on “lack of prosecution,” had been granted without prejudice.

The denial of the motion to dismiss is an interlocutory ruling for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and we now consider whether the petitioner has met the requirements of rule 2:21 (2) that he “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” We have reviewed the petitioner’s rule 2:21 memorandum and note that it focuses on reasons why “the new complaint” should be dismissed. The petitioner has not met his burden.

Judgment affirmed.

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

King v. Commonwealth, 713 N.E.2d 373, 430 Mass. 1002, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 549 (Mass. 1999).

713 N.E.2d 373 (King v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Esteves v. Commonwealth
746 N.E.2d 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2001)