Case Title: Ortiz v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13448

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2023-09-14T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13448 
 
LUIS E. ORTIZ  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
September 14, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Deoxyribonucleic Acid.  Evidence, Buccal swab.  Practice, 
Criminal, Contempt. 
 
 
 
Luis E. Ortiz (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 
extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
The petitioner and his brother, Luis M. Ortiz (Luis M.), 
have been indicted for aggravated rape of a child, and Luis M. 
has also been indicted for indecent assault and battery of a 
child under fourteen.1  On the Commonwealth's motion, a judge in 
the Superior Court ordered the petitioner to provide a buccal 
swab sample of his deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for use in the 
prosecution of Luis M.  The petitioner refused to comply with 
that order and was held in contempt by the same judge.  He then 
filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition seeking relief from the 
order that he provide a DNA sample. 
 
 
The petitioner has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant 
to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires him 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."  The petitioner has not done so.  The petitioner has an 
adequate alternative remedy, namely, an appeal to the Appeals 
 
1 Both the petitioner and Luis M. filed motions to sever 
their indictments from each other.  As yet, it does not appear 
that those motions have been decided. 
2 
 
Court from the order of contempt.2  See Lenardis v. Commonwealth, 
452 Mass. 1001, 1001-1002 (2008), citing Commonwealth v. 
Caceres, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 747, 747-748 (2005).  The single 
justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Christopher DeMayo for the petitioner. 
 
2 As the order holding the petitioner in contempt was issued 
in October 2022, it is not too late for the petitioner to move 
in the Appeals Court for an enlargement of time to file a notice 
of appeal.  See Mass. R. A. P. 14 (b), as appearing in 481 Mass. 
1626 (2019) (enlargement of time to file notice of appeal 
limited to "[one] year from the date of entry of the . . . order 
sought to be reviewed").