Case Title: Blackwell v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12491

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-02-08T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12491 
 
CHRISTOPHER BLACKWELL  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
February 8, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Plea. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Christopher Blackwell, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In 2011, Blackwell pleaded guilty to multiple criminal 
charges in the Superior Court.  More than six years later, he 
filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, alleging that certain evidence relating to the charges 
could have and should have been suppressed.  He claims that his 
counsel advised him at the time that a motion to suppress the 
evidence would not have been successful; that he was unaware 
that a motion to suppress was in fact filed; that he was not 
present at an evidentiary hearing on the motion; and that he was 
not properly advised before pleading guilty that interlocutory 
review of the denial of a motion to suppress was possible.  The 
single justice denied the petition without a hearing.  He also 
denied Blackwell's request for reconsideration.   
 
 
A request to exercise the court's extraordinary power of 
general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly 
denied where the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy.  
See McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178, 184-185 (2008).  See 
also Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 
525 U.S. 1003 (1998).  The single justice correctly denied 
relief in this case because Blackwell had an adequate 
alternative remedy.  He could have raised his claims, and sought 
to withdraw his pleas on the basis of those claims, by filing a 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
motion for a new trial in the Superior Court under Mass. R. 
Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), and by 
appealing to the Appeals Court from any adverse ruling on such a 
motion.  See Commonwealth v. Huot, 380 Mass. 403, 406 (1980) ("A 
motion for new trial is the appropriate device for attacking the 
validity of a guilty plea"); Commonwealth v. Chetwynde, 31 Mass. 
App. Ct. 8 (1991) (addressing issues associated with suppression 
motion, including allegedly improper advice of counsel, on 
appeal from denial of motion seeking to withdraw guilty plea). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Christopher Blackwell, pro se. 
 
Colby Tilley, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.