Case Title: Commonwealth v. Reade

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11655

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2014-11-17T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11655 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DEVIN R. READE. 
 
 
November 17, 2014. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Notice, Timeliness.  Practice, Criminal, Interlocutory 
appeal, Assistance of counsel. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Devin R. Reade, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his 
petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In his petition, 
Reade sought relief from a District Court judge's decision not 
to appoint counsel for him in an underlying criminal case in 
which he is charged with two misdemeanors.  See G. L. c. 211D, 
§ 2B. 
 
 
This appeal is governed by S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 
434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Rule 2:21 (1) requires that any notice 
of appeal be filed with the clerk of the county court within 
seven days of the entry of the single justice judgment, unless 
the court otherwise permits.  The judgment in this case was 
entered on December 23, 2013, but the notice of appeal was not 
filed until March 18, 2014, eighty-five days later.  Because the 
appeal is clearly untimely, we shall dismiss it. 
 
 
Even if we were to consider his claims on the merits, Reade 
would not be entitled to relief.  The District Court judge's 
decision not to appoint counsel was an interlocutory 
determination that can adequately be reviewed in a direct appeal 
in the event Reade is convicted.  "Our general superintendence 
power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be 
exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal 
appellate process . . . ."  Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 
444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  The single justice did not err or 
abuse her discretion in concluding that extraordinary 
superintendence relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was not 
necessary.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Devin R. Reade, pro se. 
 
Cynthia M. Von Flatern, Assistant District Attorney, for 
the Commonwealth. 
                     
1 General Laws c. 211D, § 2B, provides that "[a] person 
charged with a misdemeanor . . . shall not be appointed counsel 
if the judge, at arraignment, informs such person on the record 
that, if the person is convicted of such offense, the person's 
sentence shall not include any period of incarceration."  Here, 
counsel was initially appointed for Devin R. Reade.  Counsel 
subsequently moved to withdraw, which the judge allowed, and 
Reade sought the appointment of new counsel to replace him.  It 
was at that point that the judge declined to appoint counsel and 
indicated that, if Reade were convicted, he would not face any 
period of incarceration.  It is difficult to imagine how Reade 
could have been prejudiced by the judge's failure to make that 
determination initially, at the arraignment, but we need not 
resolve that question now.  Any such claim can be made and 
decided in a direct appeal.