Case Title: Aldana v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12587

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-01-24T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12587 
 
MARC ALDANA  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
January 24, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
Practice, Civil, Moot case. 
 
 
 
Marc Aldana appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Aldana 
was indicted on charges of home invasion and other offenses.  
The Commonwealth moved for an order requiring him to submit a 
buccal swab for purposes of deoxyribonucleic acid testing.  A 
judge in the Superior Court allowed the motion.  Aldana's G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition sought relief from that ruling.  The 
single justice denied relief without a hearing, stating that 
Aldana, if convicted, has an adequate, alternate remedy in the 
normal appellate process.  The single justice also denied 
Aldana's subsequent motion for an emergency stay.   
 
 
The case is before us on Aldana's memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  
In his memorandum, Aldana states that the buccal swab has since 
been taken, and he acknowledges that his request for relief is 
moot.  We agree that Aldana's "challenge to the Superior Court 
order has become moot, as that order has been fully carried 
out."  Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 477 Mass. 1012, 
1012 (2017), citing Lenardis v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1001, 
1001 (2008).  Moreover, Aldana does not suggest that the matter 
is capable of repetition, yet evading review.  The appeal must 
be dismissed. 
 
 
Aldana would fare no better if we were to consider his rule 
2:21 memorandum on its merits.  The rule requires a party 
challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set 
2 
 
 
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."  S.J.C. Rule 
2:21 (2).  "At this juncture, our focus is not on the merits of 
any ruling made by [a Superior] Court judge, but on the 
availability of other remedies."  Luke v. Commonwealth, 460 
Mass. 1002, 1002 (2011), quoting Muckle v. Commonwealth, 455 
Mass. 1008, 1008 (2009).  Aldana has not carried his burden 
under the rule.  In his m0emorandum, he argues primarily that he 
is entitled to relief on the merits (as to which we express no 
view) and only briefly asserts that he has suffered irremediable 
harm.1  Our law is to the contrary.  First, "the taking of a 
buccal swab itself, without more, is not a substantial bodily 
intrusion warranting interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3. . . .  While the taking of a buccal swab implicates 'the 
protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures,' 
. . . it is, without more, not so significant an intrusion as to 
render the intrusion irreparable through the normal process of 
appeal."  Commonwealth v. Bertini, 466 Mass. 131, 138-139 
(2013).  Second, "any harm resulting from the evidentiary use to 
which the swabs might be put is [also] fully remediable on 
appeal."  Id. at 138.  In these circumstances, the single 
justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying relief.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
                     
 
1 In addition, Aldana makes new requests for relief in his 
memorandum that were not before the single justice.  They are 
not properly before us, and we do not consider them. 
 
 
2 There are additional reasons not to disturb the judgment 
of the single justice.  Aldana's record appendix does not comply 
with the rule, as it omits his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition and 
the Commonwealth's opposition.  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2) ("[t]he 
appeal shall be presented . . . on the papers filed in the 
single justice session").  See Bishay v. Land Court Dep't of the 
Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032, 1033 n.2 (2017).  It also appears 
that Aldana has been represented by counsel in the Superior 
Court at all times.  He is therefore not entitled to challenge 
interlocutory rulings pro se, as he has done here and before the 
single justice.  Azubuko v. Commonwealth, 464 Mass. 1014, 1014 
(2013), citing Commonwealth v. Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 152 
(1991). 
3 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Marc Aldana, pro se.