The petitioner, John C. Votta, Jr., appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

A judge in the District Court found the petitioner responsible for a civil motor vehicle infraction. That finding was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the District Court and by the Appeals Court. Police Dep't of Billerica v. Votta, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2003). The Appeals Court also denied the petitioner's request for a rehearing. The petitioner did not seek further appellate review from this court.

The single justice correctly denied the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition because the claims made in the petition could have been (indeed, apparently were) raised at the hearing in the District Court and on appeal. The petitioner did not seek further review. Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.

Judgment affirmed.

John C. Votta, Jr., pro se.

A single justice of this court denied the petitioner's second petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, stemming from his 1996 conviction of littering. The petitioner appeals. We affirm.

The claims now being made by the petitioner were raised and decided against him either in his direct appeal, Commonwealth v. Votta, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1124, S.C., 425 Mass. 1106 (1997); or in his appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, Commonwealth v. Votta, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 1115, S.C., 441 Mass. 1106 (2004); or, at the very least, could have been raised in the prior proceedings. See Votta v. Commonwealth, 435 Mass. 1013 (2002) (affirming denial of petitioner's first petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3). Our general superintendence power cannot be invoked simply to get another bite of the apple.

Judgment affirmed.

John C. Votta, Jr., pro se.