Koplow v. Chelsea Division of the District Court Department

859 N.E.2d 820, 448 Mass. 1003, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 5
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 2007
StatusPublished

This text of 859 N.E.2d 820 (Koplow v. Chelsea Division of the District Court Department) 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
Koplow v. Chelsea Division of the District Court Department, 859 N.E.2d 820, 448 Mass. 1003, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 5 (Mass. 2007).

Opinion

David Lee Koplow appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari, G. L. c. 249, § 4. Koplow had requested that this court assume jurisdiction over his appeal from a conviction of assault and battery where the Appeals Court had vacated the entry of the appeal, without prejudice, because the record of the criminal proceedings was then incomplete. The Commonwealth represents, however — [1004]*1004and Koplow does not deny — that the record is now complete. Accordingly, nothing appears to prevent Koplow from being able to pursue his appeal in the Appeals Court.

The case was submitted on briefs. David Koplow, pro se. Christina Miller, Assistant District Attorney, for District Attorney for the Suffolk District.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

§ 4
Massachusetts § 4

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
859 N.E.2d 820, 448 Mass. 1003, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koplow-v-chelsea-division-of-the-district-court-department-mass-2007.