Title: Commonwealth v. Shipps

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12168 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  WILLIAM M. SHIPPS, JR. 
 
 
November 10, 2017. 
 
 
Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief, Stay of proceedings. 
 
 
 
William M. Shipps, Jr., was convicted of murder in the 
first degree, armed assault in a dwelling house, and armed 
robbery in 1984.  This court affirmed the convictions.  
Commonwealth v. Shipps, 399 Mass. 820, 840 (1987).  Shipps has 
since filed, in the Superior Court, several motions for 
postconviction relief, including, most recently, a motion for 
"post-verdict juror inquiries."  A judge other than the trial 
judge (who had retired) denied the motion after a nonevidentiary 
hearing.  Shipps then filed, in the county court, a gatekeeper 
application seeking leave to appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 278, 
§ 33E.  At the same time, he also filed a motion to stay action 
on the application pending completion of a transcript of the 
nonevidentiary hearing on the underlying motion.  He claimed 
that staying action pending completion of the transcript would 
allow him to file a more comprehensive application. 
 
 
Shipps's application and motion to stay were filed on 
September 21, 2015.  The single justice held the application in 
abeyance for approximately ten months.  On July 29, 2016, no 
transcript having been filed, the single justice denied the 
application on the basis that it did not raise a new and 
substantial issue.  In so doing, the single justice implicitly 
declined to stay the matter any further. 
 
 
 
 
Shipps appeals only from the denial of a further stay.1  He 
argues that the single justice's refusal to stay the matter 
further denied him the ability to prepare and present a 
comprehensive gatekeeper application.  Shipps filed his 
application and his motion to stay in September, 2015.  He had 
ample time -- almost a year -- to file a more detailed 
application, even without a transcript from the nonevidentiary 
hearing on his underlying motion.  He has presented no argument 
why the motion judge's detailed written decision, combined with 
the relevant papers filed in the trial court, including his own 
motion and the Commonwealth's opposition, did not provide him 
with all that he needed to present a comprehensive application.  
A transcript of a nonevidentiary hearing on the motion was not 
necessary and would have added little, if anything.2  So too for 
the single justice, who had before him all the relevant 
materials that were before the motion judge.  He did not err in 
declining to stay the matter further to await an unnecessary 
transcript. 
 
 
The order denying the motion to stay action on the 
gatekeeper application pending completion of a transcript is 
affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
William M. Shipps, Jr., pro se. 
 
Marguerite T. Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
                                                 
 
1 Shipps acknowledges that he has no right to appeal from 
the denial of the gatekeeper application pursuant to G. L. 
c. 278, § 33E, and he has not sought to do so. 
 
 
2 In his motion to stay, Shipps argued that a further stay 
was necessary to await both the preparation of the transcript as 
well as a ruling on his motion for funds for a private 
investigator.  In his appeal to this court, he presses only the 
issue of the preparation of the transcript.