Case Title: Simonton, petitioner

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12588

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-12-11T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12588 
 
KAROL E. SIMONTON, petitioner. 
 
 
December 11, 2019. 
 
 
Habeas Corpus.  Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief. 
 
 
 
Karol E. Simonton appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  In 1999, Simonton pleaded guilty to rape and 
other offenses and was sentenced to the State prison.  In 2018, 
he filed his petition, in which he alleged that he was denied a 
speedy trial, that the indictments were known by the judge to be 
fatally defective, that the judge failed to examine whether the 
Superior Court had competent jurisdiction over the case and over 
Simonton, and that his plea was coerced.  A petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus, however, must be based on "grounds distinct 
from the issues at the indictment, trial, conviction, or 
sentencing stage."  See, e.g., Soura, petitioner, 436 Mass. 
1003, 1003-1004 (2002); Averett, petitioner, 404 Mass. 28, 30 
(1989).  See also G. L. c. 248, § 25 ("court shall have no power 
to issue a writ of habeas corpus, at its discretion for . . . a 
person who is imprisoned . . . pursuant to a criminal 
conviction").  As all of Simonton's claims "center[] on the 
criminal proceedings against him," they are inappropriate for 
habeas corpus relief.  Aldrich, petitioner, 459 Mass. 1001, 1002 
(2011).  Rather, a motion for a new trial in the Superior Court 
pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 
(2001), is the proper vehicle for raising such claims.  Aldrich, 
petitioner, supra.  The single justice correctly denied habeas 
corpus relief for these reasons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
2 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Karol E. Simonton, pro se. 
 
Matthew P. Landry, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondent.