Case Title: Donald v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13500

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-16T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13500 
 
STANLEY DONALD  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
May 16, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Stanley Donald, stands convicted of various 
felony offenses.  On August 29, 2022, acting pro se,1 he filed a 
motion for a new trial in his underlying criminal case.  Nearly 
one year later, on June 26, 2023, Donald filed a petition in the 
county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, requesting that the 
Superior Court be compelled to rule on his pending motion for a 
new trial.  The single justice denied the petition without 
prejudice, on the ground that Donald had an adequate alternative 
remedy -- namely, the ability to file a motion in the Superior 
Court requesting expedited review of his motion for a new trial.  
Thereafter, Donald submitted two motions to this effect in the 
Superior Court on July 20 and September 1, 2023.  Two and one-
half weeks after filing the second motion, Donald submitted a 
"renewed" request for the single justice to compel the Superior 
 
1 At the time, Donald was apparently represented by 
appointed counsel, who had purported to enter a limited notice 
of appearance for the specific purpose of screening and possibly 
litigating a motion to obtain postconviction forensic testing, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 278A.  An order eventually issued 
authorizing forensic testing of certain evidence, see 
Commonwealth v. Donald, 487 Mass. 1036, 1037 (2021), and counsel 
filed a motion to withdraw on February 3, 2023.  Donald has 
expressly indicated in subsequent filings to the Superior Court, 
as well as this court, that he would like to proceed pro se on 
his motion for a new trial. 
2 
 
 
 
Court to rule upon his new trial motion.  That request was 
denied, and Donald pursued the instant appeal. 
"It is well settled that this court will not reverse an 
order of a single justice in the absence of an abuse of 
discretion or clear error of law" (citation omitted).  Matter of 
an Impounded Case, 491 Mass. 109, 114 (2022).  A single justice 
does not err or abuse her discretion in declining to grant 
relief where other adequate and effective remedies are available 
to the petitioner.  See Martineau v. Department of Correction, 
423 Mass. 1007, 1007 (1996).  This court has thus upheld the 
denial of relief by the single justice where there existed 
"other practical and legal steps" that a petitioner could have 
pursued to resolve inaction or delay in the trial court, see 
Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civ. Business in 
Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1018 (2015), or where the 
petitioner failed to provide the single justice with an adequate 
record to demonstrate that he had availed himself of all such 
measures, see Sellers v. Commonwealth, 464 Mass. 1015, 1015 
(2013). 
After the single justice denied Donald's initial petition 
without prejudice, Donald did pursue the alternative remedy of 
moving in the Superior Court for expedited review.  However, 
after filing the second such motion -- in which he requested 
that the trial court take action within thirty days -- Donald 
waited only seventeen days before returning to the single 
justice with a renewed request to intervene.  In these 
circumstances, the single justice did not abuse her discretion 
in declining to grant relief at that time. 
We further note that, while this matter was pending, the 
Superior Court scheduled and held a status conference concerning 
Donald's pending motion for a new trial.  The electronic docket 
reflects that at the hearing, and per Donald's request, the 
Superior Court agreed to stay action on the new trial motion 
until a subsequent hearing date.  See Mushwaalakbar v. 
Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 627, 631-632 (2021) (court may take 
judicial notice of docket entries).  It thus appears that there 
is now some prospect of a trial court decision on Donald's 
motion for a new trial. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Stanley Donald, pro se.