Murray v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Murray v. Commonwealth

918 N.E.2d 787, 455 Mass. 1016, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 916

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 23, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 918 N.E.2d 787 (Murray 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

Murray v. Commonwealth, 918 N.E.2d 787, 455 Mass. 1016, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 916 (Mass. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner has been before a single justice and this court on at least five [1017]*1017previous occasions, each time seeking to challenge sentences imposed after a 1982 conviction for armed robbery and escape. See Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 1002 (2008); Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010 (2006); Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. 1004 (2000); Hines v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 1013 (1997); Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 984 (1996). This time, in his G. L. 214, § 1, petition, he sought from the single justice “a judgment ordering the Appellate Division to enter expeditiously a final disposition of petitioner’s sentence appeals.” As the single justice noted, however, the relief that the petitioner seeks has already been granted, the Appellate Division having dismissed the petitioner’s appeals on May 8, 2008. In April, 2007, the petitioner filed a “petition to reinstate sentence appeals” with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. On May 8, 2008, the petition was dismissed without prejudice after a hearing. “[Ujnder G. L. c. 278, § 28B, if the Appellate Division decides that the original sentence should stand, it shall dismiss the appeal.” Murray v. Commonwealth, supra at 1011. Furthermore, “the statute expressly states that [the Appellate Division’s] decision shall be final.” Id. “Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge ‘shall be final.’ ” Id., quoting Hurley v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 424 Mass. 1008, 1009 (1997). The single justice did not err in dismissing the petition.

The case was submitted on briefs. James Murray, pro se. Susanne G. Reardon, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

As we have noted, this is at least the petitioner’s fifth attempt to challenge his sentences in this court. He is on notice that any future attempt to seek extraordinary relief from this court, pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 1; G. L. c. 211, § 3; or otherwise, raising like claims may result in appropriate action by the court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner has been before a single justice and this court on at least five [1017]*1017previous occasions, each time seeking to challenge sentences imposed after a 1982 conviction for armed robbery and escape. See Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 1002 (2008); Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010 (2006); Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. 1004 (2000); Hines v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 1013 (1997); Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 984 (1996). This time, in his G. L. 214, § 1, petition, he sought from the single justice “a judgment ordering the Appellate Division to enter expeditiously a final disposition of petitioner’s sentence appeals.” As the single justice noted, however, the relief that the petitioner seeks has already been granted, the Appellate Division having dismissed the petitioner’s appeals on May 8, 2008. In April, 2007, the petitioner filed a “petition to reinstate sentence appeals” with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. On May 8, 2008, the petition was dismissed without prejudice after a hearing. “[Ujnder G. L. c. 278, § 28B, if the Appellate Division decides that the original sentence should stand, it shall dismiss the appeal.” Murray v. Commonwealth, supra at 1011. Furthermore, “the statute expressly states that [the Appellate Division’s] decision shall be final.” Id. “Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge ‘shall be final.’ ” Id., quoting Hurley v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 424 Mass. 1008, 1009 (1997). The single justice did not err in dismissing the petition.

The case was submitted on briefs. James Murray, pro se. Susanne G. Reardon, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

As we have noted, this is at least the petitioner’s fifth attempt to challenge his sentences in this court. He is on notice that any future attempt to seek extraordinary relief from this court, pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 1; G. L. c. 211, § 3; or otherwise, raising like claims may result in appropriate action by the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 N.E.2d 787, 455 Mass. 1016, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-commonwealth-mass-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack