Rodriguez v. Commonwealth

449 Mass. 1029 (2007) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · August 13, 2007

Summary

Nelson Rodriguez sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, after a trial judge denied his request for third-party records under the Commonwealth v. Dwyer protocol and denied a motion to preserve the records for appellate review. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial, holding that Rodriguez had an adequate remedy through the ordinary appellate and postconviction process.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
August 13, 2007
Procedural posture
Rodriguez sought relief under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 211, section 3, from a single justice's denial of his petition challenging the trial judge's refusal to order production and preservation of third-party records for appellate review. The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the matter under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 and affirmed.
Standard of review
Whether extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, section 3, was available despite an adequate remedy through ordinary appellate review; the court also considered whether the single justice erred or abused his discretion in denying relief.
Precedential value
published and precedential Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
Parties
Nelson Rodriguez v. Commonwealth
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurewrit of certioraripost-conviction reliefevidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurepost-conviction reliefevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Rodriguez was entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, section 3, because appellate review after a possible conviction would allegedly be inadequate without access to the third-party records.
  2. Whether the availability of postconviction relief under the Dwyer protocol provided an adequate alternative remedy.

Holdings

  1. Extraordinary relief was properly denied because Rodriguez had not shown that the ordinary appellate process and available postconviction remedies under the Dwyer protocol would be inadequate.

Key quotations

set forth the reasons why 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. (449 Mass. at 1029)
Because this adequate alternative remedy is available to Rodriguez, the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. (449 Mass. at 1030)

Factual background

Rodriguez was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and other crimes. He sought production of records held by a third party under the Commonwealth v. Dwyer protocol, but the trial judge found that he had not made the required threshold showing. Rodriguez then sought to have the records marked for identification and brought into court so they could be reviewed in a direct appeal if he were convicted.

Procedural history

Rodriguez, who was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and other crimes, sought third-party records under the protocol established in Commonwealth v. Dwyer. The trial judge found that he had not made the required threshold showing and denied both his request for production and his request to have the records marked for identification and brought to court. A single justice denied relief under G. L. c. 211, section 3, concluding that Rodriguez had an adequate remedy through the ordinary appellate process. The full court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…