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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11889 
 
KERR CARRINGTON  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
 
December 11, 2015. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Kerr Carrington appeals from a judgment of a single justice 
of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  Carrington was convicted in 2010 of several 
criminal offenses.  His convictions were affirmed by the Appeals 
Court, and we denied further appellate review.  Commonwealth v. 
Carrington, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 1101, S.C., 466 Mass. 1103 (2013).  
In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Carrington challenged 
various asserted errors in the criminal proceedings.  The single 
justice denied relief without a hearing.  We affirm. 
 
 
Carrington has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires a petitioner seeking relief from an interlocutory 
ruling 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."  That rule does not apply here, as the 
charges against Carrington have gone to final judgment.  
Nonetheless, it is clear that Carrington had, and exercised, an 
adequate opportunity to obtain review in the ordinary appellate 
process.  Moreover, he remains free to file a motion for a new 
trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 
Mass. 1501 (2001), and to appeal from any adverse ruling 
thereon.  "The court's extraordinary power of general 
superintendence under c. 211, § 3, is 'exercised sparingly, not 
as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to 
provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal 
2 
 
process has run its course.'"  Doyle v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 
1002, 1003 (2015), quoting Norris v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 
1007, 1008 (2006). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
James P. McKenna for the petitioner.