Sarantakis v. Commonwealth

460 Mass. 1019 (2011) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · November 15, 2011

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial, without a hearing, of Gerald Sarantakis’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that Sarantakis could obtain adequate appellate review of the revocation of his original sentence after resentencing and therefore had not satisfied S.J.C. Rule 2:21.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
November 15, 2011
Procedural posture
Sarantakis appealed from a single justice's judgment denying, without a hearing, his petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The appeal was submitted on the papers under S.J.C. Rule 2:21.
Standard of review
Under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, the petitioner bears the burden of showing that review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained through an appeal from a final adverse judgment or other available means.
Precedential value
Published Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court per curiam opinion
Parties
Gerald Sarantakis v. Commonwealth
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Sarantakis was entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to reinstate his original sentence.
  2. Whether the ordinary appellate process would provide an adequate remedy for challenging the revocation of his original sentence.

Holdings

  1. Extraordinary relief was properly denied because Sarantakis failed to show that review of the sentence-revocation issue could not adequately be obtained through the ordinary appellate process or other available means.

Key quotations

In sum, he has not carried his burden under rule 2:21. (460 Mass. at 1020)

Factual background

Sarantakis pleaded guilty on the scheduled trial date and received a sentence based on the sentencing judge's mistaken belief that his most recent prior offense had occurred approximately nine years earlier. The Commonwealth then identified two more recent out-of-State convictions, after which the judge revoked the sentence, contemplated allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea, restored the case to the trial list, recused herself, and ordered reassignment to another judge.

Procedural history

Sarantakis pleaded guilty in the District Court to operating while under the influence of alcohol, fourth offense, and other offenses, and was sentenced to a term in the house of correction. After learning of two more recent out-of-State convictions, the judge revoked the sentence, indicated that she would allow withdrawal of the guilty plea, placed the case back on the trial list, recused herself, and directed reassignment. Sarantakis sought reinstatement of his original sentence under G. L. c. 211, § 3; a single justice denied relief without a hearing, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…