Case Title: Cooper v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12024

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-01T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12024 
 
SCOTT COOPER  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
April 1, 2016. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Notice of appeal.  Notice, Timeliness. 
 
 
 
Scott Cooper appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, Cooper's petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, or for relief in the nature of mandamus.  We 
affirm. 
 
 
In 2002, Cooper was convicted of forcible rape of a child 
and other offenses.  His convictions were affirmed by the 
Appeals Court in an unpublished decision.  Commonwealth v. 
Cooper, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2007).  In 2013, Cooper filed a 
motion for a new trial, which was denied by a judge in the 
Superior Court (motion judge).  He filed a late notice of appeal 
and was advised that he must file a motion for an extension of 
time to do so.  He filed such a motion shortly thereafter, but 
apparently it was misplaced in the clerk's office and was not 
acted on for over two months.  Once it was found, the motion 
judge allowed the motion and gave him forty-five days to file 
his notice of appeal.  Cooper did not file a new notice of 
appeal at that point, nor did he request that his original 
notice of appeal be deemed filed.  The record has not been 
assembled, and no appeal has been docketed in the Appeals Court.  
It appears that Cooper discovered this when he filed a motion to 
file his brief late in the Appeals Court and was informed that 
he had no matter pending in that court.  He wrote to the Chief 
Justice of the Trial Court seeking assistance.  His request was 
forwarded to various court personnel, but no further action on 
his appeal was taken.  Ultimately, Cooper filed his petition in 
the county court for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, or 
for relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, 
§ 5.  He subsequently filed a motion in the single justice 
session to transfer the matter to a single justice of the 
Appeals Court, stating that he was seeking only leave to file a 
late notice of appeal.  The single justice denied all relief 
without a hearing. 
 
 
Cooper has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires a petitioner seeking relief from an interlocutory 
ruling of the trial court 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."  The rule does not apply here, as Cooper 
is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
See, e.g., Santiago v. Young, 446 Mass. 1006, 1006 (2006) (rule 
2:21 does not apply where petitioner is "not challenging any 
interlocutory ruling of the trial court, but rather the inaction 
of the court").  Nonetheless, it is clear on the record that, 
where Cooper did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a 
new notice of appeal after he was granted an extension of time 
to do so, the single justice was not obligated to grant 
extraordinary relief. 
 
 
That said, we can see no reason why this appeal has not 
been permitted to proceed.  Cooper had the right to appeal from 
the denial of his motion for a new trial.  He did in fact file a 
late notice of appeal, albeit without first receiving an 
extension of time.  Once he did receive an extension -- 
belatedly, for reasons attributable to the clerk and through no 
fault of his own -- it would have been a simple matter for the 
Superior Court to recognize that a notice of appeal had already 
been filed, to which the motion applied, and to treat that 
notice of appeal as the operative notice.  We trust that if 
Cooper so requests in the Superior Court, his original notice of 
appeal will now be deemed properly filed, the record will 
promptly be assembled, and Cooper's appeal will proceed in the 
ordinary course. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Scott Cooper, pro se.