Title: Boone 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13511 
 
JAMES BOONE  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
May 13, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Indigent.  Parole.  Imprisonment, Parole. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, James Boone, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In 1980, Boone pleaded guilty to four counts of murder in 
the second degree, for which he was sentenced to four concurrent 
life sentences with the possibility of parole.1  In April 2022, 
he appeared pro se before the Massachusetts Parole Board (board) 
for a review hearing.2  The board denied parole with a review to 
be scheduled one year after the hearing, i.e., in April 2023.  
In its written decision, the board stated, among other things, 
that Boone "ha[d] not demonstrated a level of rehabilitative 
progress that would make his release compatible with the welfare 
of society."  The board also noted that Boone "appeared very 
overwhelmed by the parole hearing process"; that the board 
"would like to review a current mental health evaluation and 
[Boone's] mental health records"; and that it would like Boone 
to be represented by an advocate at his next hearing.  To that 
 
1 He also pleaded guilty to arson, for which he was 
sentenced to from fifteen to twenty years to run concurrently 
with the sentences for murder in the second degree. 
 
2 Prior to the most recent review hearing in 2022, Boone had 
five previous parole hearings, between 1995 and 2018.  The board 
denied parole after each of the prior hearings. 
2 
 
 
end, on the same date that the board issued its decision, it 
also issued a referral to provide counsel to the Committee for 
Public Counsel Services (CPCS), which subsequently assigned 
counsel. 
 
 
Boone, now represented by counsel, filed, in the Superior 
Court, a motion for funds pursuant to G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27G, 
the indigent court costs law, for purposes of having an expert 
conduct the mental health evaluation requested by the board.  A 
judge denied the motion, on May 11, 2023, on the basis that the 
court did not have the authority to grant expert funds in the 
circumstances, noting that the indigent court costs law only 
authorizes the payment of public funds to cover costs and fees 
of indigent defendants in "court proceedings," not in 
proceedings before executive agencies like the board.  The judge 
also denied Boone's subsequent motion for reconsideration, on 
June 28, 2023.   
 
 
Boone then appealed to a single justice of the Appeals 
Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 261, § 27D.  His notice of appeal 
was filed on July 10, 2023, and his appeal was entered in the 
Appeals Court on July 17, 2023.  The following day, a single 
justice stayed the appellate proceedings to await a decision in 
another then-pending case in the Appeals Court -- Commonwealth 
vs. Hastings, A.C. No. 2023-P-0105 -- that involved a similar 
issue.3  The single justice's order also provided that Boone was 
free to move to vacate the stay if he did not want to await a 
decision in the Hastings case.  Boone subsequently filed a 
motion to lift the stay, and on November 3, 2023, a different 
single justice allowed the motion and considered Boone's appeal.  
On the basis that Boone had not timely appealed from the trial 
judge's initial May 11, 2023, order, the single justice 
concluded that the appeal was not properly before the court and 
dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.4   
 
3 In Hastings, a judge denied an indigent and mentally 
disabled defendant's postconviction motion for funds to pay for 
a social services advocate to assist at a parole hearing on the 
basis that the court lacked authority to order such funds 
pursuant to G. L. c. 261, §§ 27B-27C.  See Commonwealth v. 
Hastings, 494 Mass.     (2024).  The judge then reported the 
correctness of his ruling to the Appeals Court, and this court 
subsequently allowed the defendant's application for direct 
appellate review.  See id. 
 
4 The single justice also noted that even if she were to 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, while Boone's appeal was pending in the Appeals 
Court, two other relevant events occurred:  this court granted 
an application for direct appellate review in the Hastings case 
in September 2023, and Boone filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition in the county court, on October 17, 2023.  In the 
petition, he stated that his appeal from the trial court's 
denial of his motion for funds had been "languishing" in the 
Appeals Court, and he asked this court either to order the trial 
court to authorize funds for the mental health evaluation or to 
reserve and report the case to the full court to be joined with 
the Hastings case.  The single justice denied the petition on 
November 7, 2023 (i.e., after the Appeals Court single justice 
had dismissed Boone's appeal in the Appeals Court). 
 
 
In his appeal from the single justice's judgment, Boone 
focuses entirely on the merits of his petition, notwithstanding 
the fact that the single justice did not reach the merits.  
Nowhere does Boone address why relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, is appropriate, i.e., he raises no argument in his appeal 
that he has no adequate alternative remedy or that his case 
"presents the type of exceptional matter that requires the 
court's extraordinary intervention."  Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 
482 Mass. 22, 25 (2019).  In cases such as this one, where the 
single justice "exercises discretion not to reach the merits of 
a petition, the appeal to the full court 'is strictly limited to 
a review of that ruling,' Commonwealth v. Samuels, 456 Mass. 
1025, 1027 n.1 (2010), and the full court asks only whether the 
single justice abused his or her discretion in making that 
decision."  Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 484 Mass. 1047, 1049 
(2020). 
 
 
It is clear that Boone had an adequate alternative remedy, 
one that, in fact, he has already pursued:  an appeal pursuant 
to G. L. c. 261, § 27D, to a single justice of the Appeals 
Court.  That he did not receive the relief in that court that he 
desired, and that he did not receive it as quickly as he would 
have liked, does not render the relief inadequate or entitle him 
to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  See, e.g., Tavares v. 
Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 1044, 1044 (2019), and cases cited.  
"Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there 
are adequate and effective routes other than c. 211, § 3, by 
which the petitioning party may seek relief."  Greco v. Plymouth 
 
consider the merits of Boone's appeal, she discerned no error in 
the trial court judge's conclusion that he lacked the authority 
to award Boone the requested fees. 
4 
 
 
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996).  That the Hastings case 
involves a similar issue to the one presented in Boone's case 
does not alter this or obviate the fact that Boone had an 
adequate alternative remedy.5 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Melissa Allen Celli for the petitioner. 
 
5 The Hastings case, which we also decide today, was before 
the court on direct appellate review, and does not suffer from 
the same procedural improprieties as Boone's case.  See note 3, 
supra.  In the decision, we "construe[d] the indigency statute[, 
G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27G,] to authorize a Superior Court judge, 
on motion by a parole-eligible, disabled prisoner, to allow for 
the payment of funds for expert services that are reasonably 
necessary to safeguard the prisoner's constitutional right to a 
parole hearing free of discrimination on the basis of 
disability."  Commonwealth v. Hastings, 494 Mass.    ,     
(2024).   This determination will apply to Boone going forward 
(i.e., he would be eligible for expert funds in connection with 
a parole hearing if he meets the necessary requirements).  To 
that end, Boone's "Motion for Funds for Expert in Anticipation 
of a Parole Hearing," filed in this court, is denied.  He is 
free to refile the motion, or any similar motion seeking such 
funds, in the trial court.