Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court

93 N.E.3d 840, 479 Mass. 1008

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketSJC 12308

StatusPublished

This text of 93 N.E.3d 840 (Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court) 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

Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, 93 N.E.3d 840, 479 Mass. 1008 (Mass. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

RESCRIPT

Christian Miranda appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. Miranda, who has been convicted in the Superior Court of certain drug-related offenses, filed a motion to intervene in a separate criminal case also pending in the Superior Court at that time, apparently seeking to participate in postconviction discovery that was proceeding in that case. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Miranda's petition sought relief from that denial. As there is no basis in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or other law for a defendant to intervene in another defendant's unrelated criminal case, Miranda cannot show that relief in the nature of certiorari is necessary "to correct [a] substantial error of law apparent on the record." State Bd. of Retirement v. Woodward , 446 Mass. 698 , 703, 847 N.E.2d 298 (2006). See Republican Co . v. Appeals Court , 442 Mass. 218 , 227 n.14, 812 N.E.2d 887 (2004) (intervention is "a concept foreign to criminal procedure"). Moreover, Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), provides the mechanism for Miranda to seek postconviction discovery in his own case. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying relief.

Judgment affirmed .

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

RESCRIPT

Christian Miranda appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. Miranda, who has been convicted in the Superior Court of certain drug-related offenses, filed a motion to intervene in a separate criminal case also pending in the Superior Court at that time, apparently seeking to participate in postconviction discovery that was proceeding in that case. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Miranda's petition sought relief from that denial. As there is no basis in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or other law for a defendant to intervene in another defendant's unrelated criminal case, Miranda cannot show that relief in the nature of certiorari is necessary "to correct [a] substantial error of law apparent on the record." State Bd. of Retirement v. Woodward , 446 Mass. 698 , 703, 847 N.E.2d 298 (2006). See Republican Co . v. Appeals Court , 442 Mass. 218 , 227 n.14, 812 N.E.2d 887 (2004) (intervention is "a concept foreign to criminal procedure"). Moreover, Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), provides the mechanism for Miranda to seek postconviction discovery in his own case. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying relief.

Judgment affirmed .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.E.3d 840, 479 Mass. 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-a-justice-of-the-superior-court-department-of-the-trial-court-mass-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack