Robinson v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Robinson v. Commonwealth

711 N.E.2d 165, 429 Mass. 1016, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 390

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 711 N.E.2d 165 (Robinson 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

Robinson v. Commonwealth, 711 N.E.2d 165, 429 Mass. 1016, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 390 (Mass. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Ray W. Robinson (petitioner) appeals from the denial of his petition, pursu[1017]*1017ant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, for relief by a single justice of this court. The petitioner, while awaiting a new trial, sought review of several pretrial motions he had filed pro se and that he claimed had neither been docketed by the clerk nor acted on by the court. The single justice denied the request for relief; judgment was entered on September 28, 1998; the petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 1998.

Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Ray W. Robinson, pro se.

The Commonwealth has filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal, alleging, among other things, that the court has not acted on some of the petitioner’s motions or has reserved action for the trial judge and asserting that review of the trial judge’s decisions may be obtained on appeal from the final judgment. The petitioner then filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The conclusory allegations therein regarding the absence of any other remedy are not persuasive. The petitioner’s subsequent motion to dismiss his appeal without prejudice does not alter our view. The Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss is allowed.

So ordered.

The case was submitted.

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

Ray W. Robinson (petitioner) appeals from the denial of his petition, pursu[1017]*1017ant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, for relief by a single justice of this court. The petitioner, while awaiting a new trial, sought review of several pretrial motions he had filed pro se and that he claimed had neither been docketed by the clerk nor acted on by the court. The single justice denied the request for relief; judgment was entered on September 28, 1998; the petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 1998.

Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Ray W. Robinson, pro se.

The Commonwealth has filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal, alleging, among other things, that the court has not acted on some of the petitioner’s motions or has reserved action for the trial judge and asserting that review of the trial judge’s decisions may be obtained on appeal from the final judgment. The petitioner then filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The conclusory allegations therein regarding the absence of any other remedy are not persuasive. The petitioner’s subsequent motion to dismiss his appeal without prejudice does not alter our view. The Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss is allowed.

So ordered.

The case was submitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 N.E.2d 165, 429 Mass. 1016, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-commonwealth-mass-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack