Case Title: Mitchell v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13462

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2023-09-21T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13462 
 
DEYQUOINE MITCHELL  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
September 21, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Discovery. 
 
 
 
Deyquoine Mitchell appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for extraordinary 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Mitchell has been charged with possession of a large 
capacity firearm and possession of a class D substance with 
intent to distribute.  He filed a motion for discovery of 
evidence related to police practices.  A judge in the Superior 
Court denied the motion.  Mitchell's petition sought relief from 
that ruling. 
 
 
Mitchell has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 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 adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
means."  He has not done so.  "If [Mitchell] is convicted of any 
offense, he will have the opportunity to raise his issues in the 
ordinary appellate process."  Martinez v. Commonwealth, 475 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2016).  "[W]e have repeatedly stated that 
'[d]iscovery matters such as this are routinely addressed on 
direct appeal.'" Pinney v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 1029, 1030 
(2021), quoting Martinez, supra.  The single justice neither 
erred nor abused her discretion by denying relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
2 
 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Darren T. Griffis & Sarah Varney for the petitioner.