Case Title: Kyricopoulos v. Attorney General

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12608

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-01-24T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12608 
 
JAMES PETER KYRICOPOULOS  vs.  ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.1 
 
 
January 24, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, James Peter Kyricopoulos, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
 A jury convicted Kyricopoulos in 2014 of numerous counts 
of larceny over $250 in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 33.  He 
filed a timely notice of appeal.  As best we can tell from the 
record, including the trial court docket, there was some delay 
in the preparation of the relevant trial transcripts and the 
assembly of the record, leading eventually to Kyricopoulos's 
filing of a document with a single justice of the Appeals Court 
that was treated as a motion to compel assembly of the record 
and allowed.2  The record was subsequently assembled, and 
Kyricopoulos's direct appeal was entered in the Appeals Court in 
July 2016.  After several stays, at Kyricopoulos's request, the 
appeal was ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution in June 
2017.3 
 
                                                 
 
1 Clerk of Courts for Essex County. 
 
 
2 To the extent Kyricopoulos sought other relief in that 
same document, it was denied. 
 
 
3 Kyricopoulos also filed at least one G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition during this time, which was denied, and from which he 
did not appeal. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Kyricopoulos filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, in June 
2018, in which, among other things, he sought to have his 
convictions vacated and the indictments dismissed, to be 
released immediately from prison, and to have certain evidence 
destroyed.  He also asked the court to commence investigations 
into various individuals associated with his case, including the 
prosecutor, a judge, and the Attorney General.  The single 
justice denied the petition without a hearing, and then 
subsequently denied Kyricopoulos's motions for reconsideration.  
  
 
Kyricopoulus has now filed what appears to have been 
intended as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 
2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Technically speaking, 
rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation because Kyricopoulos 
is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
It is nonetheless clear that he is not entitled to review 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  He continues to raise issues 
related to the delay in the assembly of the record in the trial 
court.  To the extent that the record was assembled and 
Kyricopoulos's direct appeal was properly entered in the Appeals 
Court, the issue is moot.  To the extent that Kyricopoulos 
claims that, in connection with the delay in the assembly of the 
record, members of the bar and the judiciary falsified docket 
entries, committed perjury, or otherwise sought to deprive 
Kyricopoulos of his rights, his arguments are neither adequate 
appellate argument nor substantiated by the record.  See Mass. 
R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).  See also 
Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 
U.S. 1003 (1998), and cases cited.4 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
James Peter Kyricopoulos, pro se. 
                                                 
 
4 Furthermore, Kyricopoulos's pejorative remarks about 
various individuals involved with his case, including a 
prosecutor, several judges, and the Attorney General, are 
inappropriate and do not in any way enhance his position.