Title: Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court Dep’t of the Trial Court

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11648 
 
STEVEN FITZGERALD  vs.  DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT 
OF THE TRIAL COURT.1 
 
 
 
March 13, 2015 
 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Plea. 
 
 
 
 
Steven Fitzgerald appeals from a judgment of a single 
justice of this court denying his petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Because we agree with the single justice 
that Fitzgerald is not entitled to extraordinary relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, we affirm. 
 
 
Fitzgerald pleaded guilty to certain criminal offenses in 
the District Court in 2013.  In his petition before the single 
justice, he argued that he was forcibly medicated when he 
tendered his pleas.  He also complained that he has not been 
able to obtain a copy of the court file of the earlier, related 
proceedings conducted under G. L. c. 123, §§ 8B and 16 (b), 
which resulted in orders that he be involuntarily committed and 
treated with antipsychotic medications. 
 
 
On appeal, Fitzgerald primarily presses his claim that he 
was improperly ordered to take antipsychotic medications before 
                     
 
1 The Haverhill and Brockton Divisions of the District Court 
Department of the Trial Court were named as the respondents.  
They are nominal parties only.  The real party in interest is 
the Commonwealth.  S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996). 
 
2 
 
he pleaded guilty.2  It appears that at some point before the 
plea hearing, a District Court judge had granted a petition of 
the medical director of Bridgewater State Hospital to 
involuntarily commit Fitzgerald pursuant to G. L. c. 123, 
§ 16 (b), and also granted the medical director's separate 
petition seeking authority to treat him with antipsychotic 
medications pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 8B.  Then, in March, 
2013, a second judge held the plea hearing at which Fitzgerald 
was represented by counsel.  After finding him competent to 
stand trial,3 and conducting a plea colloquy, the judge accepted 
his guilty pleas and sentenced him.  To the extent that 
Fitzgerald now seeks through his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition to 
have his pleas vacated, on the ground that he was improperly 
forced to take antipsychotic medications, and was under the 
influence of those medications when he tendered his guilty 
pleas, his request is misplaced.  Such a request should be made 
in a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as 
appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), which, if denied, is subject 
to review in the normal appellate process.  A motion for a new 
trial filed in the trial court, and not a petition for general 
superintendence relief in this court, is the appropriate remedy.  
See Commonwealth v. Colon, 439 Mass. 519, 524 (2003), quoting 
Commonwealth v. Huot, 380 Mass. 403, 406 (1980) ("A motion for a 
new trial is the appropriate device for attacking the validity 
of a guilty plea").  See also McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 
178, 185 (2008), and cases cited ("Our jurisprudence under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, consistently reinforces the principle, which is 
grounded in the statutory language, that the extraordinary 
remedy of general superintendence is meant for situations where 
a litigant has no adequate alternative remedy").  The single 
                     
 
2 Steven Fitzgerald has filed various motions to impound his 
entire case file in this court.  The court previously allowed 
the respondents' motion to impound the record appendix because 
it contains mental health records protected from disclosure 
under G. L. c. 123.  Fitzgerald has not demonstrated that there 
is good cause to impound the entire case file, but we shall 
amend the previous order of impoundment so that it includes all 
of his medical and mental health records wherever they may 
appear in the file of the case. 
 
 
3 Two District Court judges had previously found him 
incompetent to stand trial under G. L. c. 123, §§ 15 and 16. 
 
3 
 
justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.4 
 
 
Further, Fitzgerald was not entitled to extraordinary 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to the extent that he claims 
that there was error in the G. L. c. 123, §§ 8B and 16 (b), 
proceedings.  It was in those proceedings that the judge ordered 
the administration of antipsychotic medication.  If Fitzgerald 
wished to challenge that order, he could have sought review from 
the Appellate Division of the District Court pursuant to G. L. 
c. 123, § 9 (a), or from a judge of the Superior Court pursuant 
to G. L. c. 123, § 9 (b).  It does not appear that he ever 
availed himself of that right.  See Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 
Mass. 1006, 1006 (1996) ("A request for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where the petitioning party has 
or had adequate and effective avenues other than G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, by which to seek and obtain the requested relief"). 
 
 
Finally, to the extent that Fitzgerald continues to assert 
that he has been unable to obtain a copy of the court record of 
the §§ 8B and 16 (b) proceedings, his allegation is belied by 
the record before us.  According to the docket, he has been 
furnished with copies of the file, including audiotapes of the 
proceedings.  If for any reason the District Court clerk's 
office has not provided him with a copy of the entire record, he 
is of course entitled to have it upon a proper request and the 
payment of any applicable costs of reproduction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
Steven Fitzgerald, pro se. 
 
Kris C. Foster, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
defendant. 
                     
 
4 Likewise, a motion that Fitzgerald had filed in the 
District Court (and that had been denied), entitled "Motion to 
Vacate and Reimpose Sentence in Order to File Motion to Revise 
and Revoke," was reviewable on appeal in the ordinary course and 
did not warrant the single justice's consideration under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.