Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of Paul Cucinelli's petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging an Appellate Division decision that increased his armed robbery sentence. The court held that although the Appellate Division's decision was final and not directly appealable, extraordinary superintendence relief was unavailable, and a motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a) provided an adequate alternative remedy for any claim that the sentence was illegal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether S.J.C. Rule 2:21 applied to Cucinelli's challenge to the Appellate Division's decision.
- Whether the Supreme Judicial Court should grant relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from an Appellate Division decision that was made final by G. L. c. 278, § 28B.
- Whether an available motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a) provided an adequate alternative means to challenge an allegedly illegal sentence.
Holdings
- S.J.C. Rule 2:21 did not apply because the Appellate Division's decision was not an interlocutory ruling.
- The fact that Cucinelli had no direct appeal from the Appellate Division's final decision did not entitle him to relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3; the single justice properly denied relief.
- If Cucinelli was claiming that his new sentence was illegal, Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a) provided an adequate alternative means to seek review, defeating extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Key quotations
“That, however, does not mean that he is entitled to review under G. L. c. 211, § 3.” (477 Mass. at 1004)
“Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge 'shall be final.'” (477 Mass. at 1004)
Factual background
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court increased Cucinelli's sentence for armed robbery. Cucinelli sought extraordinary relief, arguing that he lacked a direct right to appeal the Appellate Division's decision to the appellate courts and that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was therefore available. The record also indicated that he had not filed the required appendix and that an alternative motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence was available under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a).
Procedural history
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court increased Cucinelli's sentence for armed robbery. He filed a second petition in the county court seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3; a single justice denied relief, and the full Supreme Judicial Court reviewed that judgment. His first § 3 petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel before the Appellate Division, had also been denied by a different single justice, and he did not appeal that judgment.