Locks v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Locks v. Commonwealth

655 N.E.2d 136, 421 Mass. 1003, 1995 Mass. LEXIS 361

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 655 N.E.2d 136 (Locks 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

Locks v. Commonwealth, 655 N.E.2d 136, 421 Mass. 1003, 1995 Mass. LEXIS 361 (Mass. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

David Locks filed a motion to dismiss a criminal complaint pending against him in the West Roxbury Division of the District Court Department. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 (c) (1), 378 Mass. 871 (1979). The motion to dismiss was denied. Locks then sought relief from the denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.). After hearing, a single justice of this court denied Locks’s request for relief. “A denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 (c) (1) . . . may not be appealed until after trial, and relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available as a matter of right.” Epps v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 97, 99 [1004]*1004(1994) . “To obtain review, a defendant must demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and irremediable error, such that he cannot be placed in statu quo in the regular course of appeal.” Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198 (1980). Locks’s claim does not satisfy the two-part test set forth in Morrissette, supra. The single justice did not reserve and report the issue; nor did he decide the issue. The single justice simply denied relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in a situation where Locks’s rights can be protected in the normal course of appeal.

Daniel J. Veerman, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

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

David Locks filed a motion to dismiss a criminal complaint pending against him in the West Roxbury Division of the District Court Department. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 (c) (1), 378 Mass. 871 (1979). The motion to dismiss was denied. Locks then sought relief from the denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.). After hearing, a single justice of this court denied Locks’s request for relief. “A denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 (c) (1) . . . may not be appealed until after trial, and relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available as a matter of right.” Epps v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 97, 99 [1004]*1004(1994) . “To obtain review, a defendant must demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and irremediable error, such that he cannot be placed in statu quo in the regular course of appeal.” Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198 (1980). Locks’s claim does not satisfy the two-part test set forth in Morrissette, supra. The single justice did not reserve and report the issue; nor did he decide the issue. The single justice simply denied relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in a situation where Locks’s rights can be protected in the normal course of appeal.

Daniel J. Veerman, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 N.E.2d 136, 421 Mass. 1003, 1995 Mass. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locks-v-commonwealth-mass-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack