Case Title: Flores v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13550

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2024-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13550 
 
HALIENDREW FLORES  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
April 16, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts, 
Appeal from order of single justice.  Practice, Criminal, 
Disclosure of identity of informer. 
 
 
 
 
Haliendrew Flores (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of 
the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from an interlocutory ruling of 
a judge in the Superior Court.  We affirm. 
 
 
Along with a codefendant,1 the petitioner has been charged 
with murder in the first degree and other offenses.  He filed a 
motion for disclosure of the identity of a confidential 
informant to whom a third party allegedly confessed to the 
killing.  At first, the judge attempted to facilitate an 
interview between defense counsel and the informant under 
conditions that would protect the informant's anonymity.  The 
informant, however, declined to participate, and so the 
petitioner renewed his motion for disclosure of the informant's 
identity.  The judge denied the motion, and the petitioner 
sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
The petitioner has filed a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires 
him to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court 
decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final 
 
1 The codefendant did not participate in the county court 
proceedings or in this appeal. 
 
2 
 
adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
means."2  The petitioner cannot make this showing, as he has a 
remedy in the ordinary appellate process.  The denial of the 
petitioner's motion was an ordinary pretrial ruling, reviewable 
(and, if warranted, remediable) on direct appeal from any 
conviction.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 472 Mass. 827, 
846-851 (2015), S.C., 482 Mass. 838 (2019) (reviewing denial of 
motion for disclosure of informant's identity and remanding for 
further proceedings on that issue).  It is well established that 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not a substitute for the ordinary 
appellate process.  E.g., Pinney v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 
1029, 1030 (2021).  The petitioner argues that in his case, the 
ordinary appellate process is inadequate due to his young age 
(nineteen), the lengthy duration of the process, and the 
likelihood that he would be imprisoned pending appeal during a 
developmentally crucial time.  "The fact that . . . [the 
ordinary appellate] process might be time-consuming and the 
outcome uncertain does not render the remedy inadequate."  
Gonsalves v. Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 1025, 1026 (2018), quoting 
Calzado v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 1033, 1034 (2018).  
Similarly, the ordinary process is not inadequate merely because 
the petitioner might be imprisoned during that time, as this is 
a prospect faced by any young person accused of a serious 
offense.3  Cf. Brea v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2015), 
quoting Rosencranz v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 1011, 1012 (2015) 
("collateral consequences attendant to the pendency of criminal 
proceedings . . . do not necessarily render the regular 
appellate process inadequate").  Accordingly, the petitioner is 
not entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Eva G. Jellison for the petitioner. 
 
2 The petitioner was obligated to file, and properly did 
file, such a memorandum even though the single justice denied 
relief on the merits without addressing the threshold question 
whether the petitioner lacked an adequate alternative remedy.  
We express no view as to whether the motion for disclosure of 
the informant's identity was properly denied. 
 
3 Moreover, nothing prevents the petitioner, if he is 
convicted, from seeking a stay of execution of sentence pending 
appeal.