Case Title: Ramos v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12924

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-06-16T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12924 
 
JASON RAMOS  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
June 16, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Jason Ramos (defendant) appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
The defendant, who has been charged with firearms offenses, 
filed a motion to suppress, which was allowed by a judge in the 
District Court in February, 2018.1  The Commonwealth applied for 
leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Mass. R. 
Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as amended, 476 Mass. 1501 (2017).  On 
October 2, 2018, a single justice of this court allowed the 
application and directed the appeal to the Appeals Court.  On 
June 3, 2019, the record had not yet been assembled, and so the 
appeal had not yet been entered in the Appeals Court.  The 
defendant therefore filed a motion in the District Court to 
dismiss the charges against him, arguing that his speedy trial 
and due process rights had been violated.2  On July 2, 2019, a 
second District Court judge issued an order giving the 
Commonwealth "until July 31, 2019, to perfect its appeal . . . 
or face dismissal of the case."  The Commonwealth's appeal was 
                     
 
1 The motion to suppress was initially denied, but was 
allowed on reconsideration. 
 
 
2 To be clear, the defendant did not seek merely to dismiss 
the interlocutory appeal.  He sought to dismiss the entire 
prosecution because, he alleged, the Commonwealth's appeal was 
taking too long.  See Campiti v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1004, 
1004-1005 (1997). 
2 
 
 
not perfected (as the record still was not assembled) by July 
31, 2019, but the judge did not dismiss the charges against the 
defendant. 
 
 
The interlocutory appeal was eventually entered in the 
Appeals Court on October 23, 2019, promptly after the record had 
been assembled, but more than a year after the single justice 
had granted the Commonwealth leave to appeal.  The defendant 
then renewed his motion in the District Court to dismiss the 
underlying charges, and the motion was again denied.  The 
defendant's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, in 
which he sought leave to cross-appeal to the Appeals Court from 
the denial of his motion to dismiss the charges, followed.3 
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party 
challenging 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."  Ramos has not 
met his burden under the rule.  "The denial of a motion to 
dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, 
and we have indicated many times that G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not 
be used to circumvent that rule.  Unless a single justice 
decides the matter on the merits or reserves and reports it to 
the full court, neither of which occurred here, a defendant 
cannot receive review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the denial 
of his motion to dismiss."  Bateman v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 
1024, 1024-1025 (2007), quoting Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 
Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002).  This principle applies where, as here, 
a defendant's motion to dismiss is based on speedy trial and due 
process grounds.  See Cousin v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1046, 
1046 (2004); Jackson, supra; Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 
1003, 1004 (2001). 
 
 
Ramos has not shown that the ordinary process of trial and 
appeal is inadequate for him to obtain review of his speedy 
trial and due process claims, and, if warranted, dismissal of 
the charges against him.  Regardless whether the specific relief 
the defendant seeks under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is an order from 
this court dismissing the charges or leave to take an immediate 
interlocutory cross-appeal to the Appeals Court from the 
District Court's denial of his motions to dismiss, the single 
                     
 
3 The proceedings in the Appeals Court have been stayed 
pending our decision in this case. 
3 
 
 
justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying 
relief.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Jason C. Howard for the petitioner. 
                     
 
4 Although we uphold the judgment of the single justice, we 
take note of the relatively lengthy delay in the Commonwealth's 
interlocutory appeal arriving in the Appeals Court, caused, at 
least in part, by the Commonwealth's missteps.  The defendant's 
motion to suppress was allowed on February 2, 2018.  The record 
before us suggests that the Commonwealth received an enlargement 
of time to file its rule 15 application, due to its own 
administrative error, and leave to file its late notice of 
appeal nunc pro tunc, due to the prosecutor's admitted lack of 
awareness of procedural requirements in taking an interlocutory 
appeal.  Additionally, after leave to appeal was granted by the 
single justice, it was more than one year before the record was 
actually assembled and the appeal was entered in the Appeals 
Court; there is no indication in the record whether that time is 
attributable in any way to the Commonwealth's failure to meet 
any of its obligations as an appellant, or was attributable to 
the trial court clerk, or was perhaps attributable to other 
causes.