Sandman v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Jordan P. Sandman’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that extraordinary relief was unavailable because Sandman could raise his challenges to the probation revocation and new criminal charges through direct appeals or appropriate trial-court motions.

Holdings

1. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied when the petitioner has other adequate avenues for relief, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the absence or inadequacy of those remedies.
2. A direct appeal is an appropriate method for seeking review of a probation revocation order; therefore, a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition is not appropriate where that direct appellate remedy is available.
3. Issues relating to new criminal charges may be raised in a direct appeal from any adverse judgment or, as appropriate, through motions in the trial court rather than through extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was available when Sandman could raise his challenges through a direct appeal from the probation revocation order.
2. Whether Sandman could use a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition to challenge issues arising from the new 2018 criminal charges when direct appeal or appropriate trial-court motions remained available.

Disposition

affirmed