Case Title: Zagranski v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12171

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-27T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12171 
 
RICHARD ZAGRANSKI  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
June 27, 2017. 
 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Capital case. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Richard Zagranski, was convicted of murder 
in the first degree in 1989.  We affirmed the conviction.  See 
Commonwealth v. Zagranski, 408 Mass. 278 (1990).  In 2012, 
Zagranski filed a motion for postconviction relief claiming that 
he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate 
counsel and seeking, among other things, an order granting him a 
new trial, an order vacating his conviction, or an order 
reducing the degree of the offense.  He set forth several bases 
for the ineffective assistance claim including, as is relevant 
here, that his counsel had a conflict of interest that impaired 
counsel's ability to provide effective representation.1  The 
postconviction motion was denied.  Zagranski then filed, in the 
county court, a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to G. L. 
c. 278, § 33E, in which he continued to press the conflict of 
interest argument.  A single justice denied the petition, in 
August, 2013, as well as Zagranski's subsequent motion for 
reconsideration.2 
                                                 
 
1 The conflict of interest issue was considered by the trial 
judge at the time of trial, but the fact that Zagranski did not 
raise it in his direct appeal did not preclude his raising it in 
his motion for a new trial where the same counsel represented 
him both at trial and in the direct appeal.  See Commonwealth v. 
Edgardo, 426 Mass. 48, 49-50 (1997), and cases cited. 
  
 
2 Zagranski's petition for a writ of certiorari to the 
United States Supreme Court was also denied. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
In February, 2016, Zagranski filed a "Petition for 
Extraordinary Relief Pursuant to [G. L. c.] 211, § 3," in the 
county court in which he claimed that the transcript of the 
hearing at which the trial judge considered the conflict of 
interest issue was not a part of the record that was before this 
court when it considered his direct appeal.  In Zagranski's 
view, the court was thus not able to fulfil its duty pursuant to 
G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to review "the whole case" because the 
court did not have a complete record of the trial court 
proceedings.  A single justice denied the petition on the bases 
that Zagranski has an adequate alternative remedy -- to seek 
postconviction relief in the trial court -- and that his 
petition did not, in any event, raise a "new and substantial" 
issue that would entitle him to review pursuant to G. L. c. 278, 
§ 33E.  Zagranski has appealed from the single justice's denial 
of his petition; the Commonwealth has moved to dismiss the 
appeal. 
 
 
A decision of a single justice denying leave to appeal 
under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, is final and unreviewable, and 
Zagranski cannot circumvent that by seeking relief pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  See Cook v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 1008, 
1009 (2008), citing Leaster v. Commonwealth, 385 Mass. 547, 549 
(1982).  See also Napolitano v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 240, 
241 (2000) (gatekeeper decision pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, 
cannot be appealed to the full court nor collaterally attacked 
on the merits through other means).  Zagranski nonetheless 
argues that seeking postconviction relief in the trial court is 
illogical because what he is asking for is not a new trial or 
other action in the trial court, but rather a new appeal 
because, in his view, his direct appeal did not get the "whole 
case" review to which he is entitled.  At its core, however, 
Zagranski's argument remains one of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, and that issue should generally first be raised in a 
motion for postconviction relief in the trial court, so that an 
adequate record can be developed.  Commonwealth v. Zinser, 446 
Mass. 807, 810-812 (2006), and cases cited.  We do not discount 
the possibility that he may be entitled to relief, but he should  
proceed in the first instance in the trial court, not in this 
court.3   
                                                 
 
3 We think it worth noting that Zagranski has previously 
raised the conflict of interest issue in his earlier motion for 
postconviction relief.  It will be incumbent on him to show that 
his current argument regarding the record is not simply an 
attempt to make an end-run around the denial of his earlier 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Richard Zagranski, pro se. 
 
Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
motion and denial of leave to appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 278, 
§ 33E.