King v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

King v. Commonwealth

713 N.E.2d 373, 430 Mass. 1002, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 549

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 713 N.E.2d 373 (King 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 N.E.2d 373, 430 Mass. 1002, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-commonwealth-mass-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack