DANIEL D. TAVARES vs. COMMONWEALTH.
Daniel D. Tavares appeals from the denial, without a hearing, of his petition for relief in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in which he claimed that his convictions, based on his guilty pleas, were duplicative. [Note 1] For the reasons stated in Tavares v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1011 (2006), the single justice properly denied relief.
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on briefs.
Daniel D. Tavares, pro se.
Julia K. Holler, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
FOOTNOTES
[Note 1] Tavares's petition also sought rulings (either from the single justice or from the full court) on questions of law relating to his sentences. In his brief on appeal, however, Tavares presents no argument concerning those questions. Tavares has also presented an additional question, concerning his larceny convictions, in a separate petition to this court. That question was not before the single justice and is not properly before us. Furthermore, each of Tavares's questions could have been raised in an appropriate postconviction motion.
MOSHE ROTHMAN vs. JON TRISTER.
The petitioner, Moshe Rothman, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
The single justice of this court correctly determined that this was not an appropriate occasion to exercise the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence. The petitioner's failure to perfect his appeals in the Appeals Court was of his own doing. Although he was acting pro se, he nevertheless was bound to comply with the governing court rules. See Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985); International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). Moreover, there was no demonstration in the petitioner's submissions before the single justice of this court, or in his submissions before the full court, that the single justices of the Appeals Court had erred or abused their discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 379 (1975) (discussing moving party's burden in seeking permission to docket appeal late).
Judgment affirmed.
Moshe Rothman, pro se.
Brooks L. Glahn, for the defendant, submitted a brief.
LAWRENCE WATSON vs. APPEALS COURT. [Note 1]
Since at least 2004, the petitioner, Lawrence Watson, has been a frequent litigant in the Massachusetts appellate courts. See, e.g., Watson v. Walker, 447 Mass. 1014, 1015 (2006). This appeal, like others that preceded it, has its roots in the petitioner's challenge to a G. L. c. 209A order that was entered
Page 1035
against him in the District Court. On December 14, 2006, the District Court assembled the record for his appeal from that order, and the appeal subsequently was entered in the Appeals Court. Walker vs. Watson, Appeals Court No. 2006-P-1945. The petitioner's requests in the Appeals Court to file fewer briefs than the appellate rules require was denied by that court, as were his motions for discovery, to extend for a second time the date for filing his brief, and for other interlocutory relief; his appeals from those rulings were consolidated with the underlying appeal from the G. L. c. 209A order. After notice, on June 20, 2007, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to its standing order concerning dismissal of appeals for lack of prosecution. [Note 2]
On June 22, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court challenging the dismissal of Appeals Court No. 2006-P-1945, as well as the denial of his various motions filed in that court. A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm.
The single justice properly denied relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, because adequate alternative remedies were available. See Watson v. Walker, supra at 1014; Rasheed v. Appeals Court, 434 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2001). When the Appeals Court dismissed his appeal, the petitioner could have, pursuant to the terms of the standing order governing dismissals for lack of prosecution, sought relief (reinstatement of the appeal) from a single justice of that court. See Appeals Court Standing Order Concerning Dismissal of Appeals and Reports in All Cases for Lack of Prosecution. He also could have sought further appellate review of that dismissal pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 27.1 (a), as amended, 367 Mass. 920 (1975). Rasheed v. Appeals Court, supra. We therefore discern no error in our single justice's denial of extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
Lawrence Watson, pro se.
Annapurna Balakrishna, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
FOOTNOTES
[Note 1] The real party in interest, Sherry Walker, was not named as a respondent in this case, as she should have been. S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996).
[Note 2] On July 30, 2007, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the order of dismissal. Citing Rasheed v. Appeals Court, 434 Mass. 1012 (2001), the Appeals Court ruled that no action was necessary. The petitioner did not file an application for further appellate review. See id. at 1013.