Case Title: Howell v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12775

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-01-10T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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; SJCReportersjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12775 
 
CURTIS HOWELL  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
January 10, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Due 
Process of Law, Competency to stand trial. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Curtis Howell, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Howell has been charged in a complaint with assault with a 
dangerous weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b).  At 
the arraignment in the District Court, a judge ordered that 
Howell be committed to Bridgewater State Hospital pursuant to 
G. L. c. 123, § 15 (a), for a determination whether he was 
competent to stand trial.  The hospital subsequently filed a 
petition for civil commitment pursuant to G. L. c. 123, 
§ 16 (b).  After Howell had been committed for the initial 
competency determination, he filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition in the county court alleging various violations of his 
due process rights, the details of which are not easily 
discernable from the record before us.  He subsequently filed 
additional papers in the county court raising issues related not 
to the underlying criminal proceedings but to the competency 
proceedings.  The single justice denied the petition without a 
hearing. 
 
 
In his appeal to this court, Howell argues that his 
substantive and due process rights have been violated and his 
right to a fair hearing (related, presumably, to the competency 
determination) and a fair trial (related, presumably, to the 
underlying criminal proceedings) have been hindered.  What he 
has not done is demonstrate why he is entitled to review 
 
 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Indeed, he has not even 
addressed the issue.  It is in any event clear that he is not 
entitled to such review where other relief is available to him.  
There is no reason why his claims of violations of his due 
process rights cannot adequately be addressed in an appeal from 
any adverse judgment against him in the criminal proceedings or 
why his claims stemming from the competency proceedings cannot 
adequately be addressed in an appeal from a determination in 
that proceeding. 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her 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. 
 
Curtis Howell, pro se.