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 (2006). See Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218, 227 n.14 (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.

Greg T. Schubert for the plaintiff.

Thomas E. Bocian, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Frank LaMonde appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

As best we can tell from the record before us, LaMonde's two minor children are in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families and have been since February, 2016. Since that time, LaMonde has filed several emergency motions for custody. In the most recent motion, filed in April, 2017, LaMonde not only seeks custody but also alleges that the children's mother, from whom LaMonde is divorced, is a danger to the children and has "kidnapped" them two or three times. [Note 1], [Note 2] The motion was denied.

Page 1009

LaMonde then filed a petition with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking custody of the children. He also alleged, in the petition, that the children's mother kidnapped the children and took them out of Massachusetts; that he reported the alleged kidnapping to both the Probate and Family Court Department and the local police; and that no one has pursued the matter. The single justice denied the petition. LaMonde's subsequent notice of appeal was struck (by a different justice) on the basis that there is no right to appeal from the denial of a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. LaMonde then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, which appears to be the same document that he filed in the Appeals Court (i.e., the petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is the exact same as the petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par.). A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing.

The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that "review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). LaMonde has not made, and cannot make, such a showing. He has already sought interlocutory review of the trial judge's rulings under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court. He is not entitled to any additional review at this juncture. See Iagatta v. Iagatta, 448 Mass. 1016, 1016 (2007); Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice."). [Note 3]

To the extent that LaMonde also seeks, in this court, relief from the recent denials in the Probate and Family Court Department of his motion to expedite the custody proceedings, the issue was not before the single justice and we therefore need not consider it. See Carvalho v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1014, 1014 (2011), and cases cited. In any event, it appears from the Probate and Family Court docket for each child's case that status conferences in both are currently scheduled for May, 2018.

The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Frank LaMonde, pro se.