Title: Carrington v. Commonwealth

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11834 
 
KERR CARRINGTON  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
July 17, 2015. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Kerr Carrington appeals from a judgment of a single justice 
of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
After a jury trial in the Superior Court, Carrington was 
convicted of larceny of a motor vehicle.1  The Commonwealth nol 
prossed so much of the indictment as alleged a second or 
subsequent offense.  Contending that the Commonwealth could not 
properly nol pros only a portion of the indictment and that this 
is a systemic issue affecting the proper administration of the 
judiciary, Carrington filed motions pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. 
P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), and, before the 
motions were acted on, filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.  
At least one of his motions has since been denied by a different 
judge in the Superior Court, the trial judge having retired. 
 
 
Carrington has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires an appellant seeking relief from interlocutory rulings 
of the trial court 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 rule does not apply here, as Carrington 
                     
 
1 The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction in an 
unpublished decision, and this court denied further appellate 
review.  Commonwealth v. Carrington (No. 1), 82 Mass. App. Ct. 
1106, S.C., 463 Mass. 1107 (2012). 
2 
 
is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
The entry of the nolle prosequi was the prosecutor's decision, 
not the judge's, and it finally resolved that portion of the 
indictment, the remainder of which was finally resolved by his 
conviction.  Nonetheless, it is clear that Carrington has an 
adequate alternative remedy.  As he acknowledges in his 
memorandum, he asserted the same claims by motion in the 
Superior Court as he did in his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.  He 
is entitled to appeal any adverse rulings on his motions, 
provided that he timely filed a notice of appeal or receives an 
enlargement of time to do so.2  The single justice neither erred 
nor abused her discretion by denying extraordinary relief.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Kerr Carrington, pro se. 
 
                     
 
2 The Superior Court docket indicates that Carrington has 
filed a notice of appeal. 
 
 
3 To the extent that Carrington requests a broader, systemic 
review of unlawful practices he alleges exist in the trial 
court, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
declining to order such a review.  We have reviewed the record 
and are satisfied that the issues raised by Carrington can be, 
and are better suited to be, reviewed on a case-by-case basis.