Title: Gonsalves 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12521 
 
SANDON GONSALVES  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 16, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Sandon Gonsalves appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Gonsalves was indicted for assault and battery, and he has 
an attorney representing him in the Superior Court on that 
charge.  Several months later, he was indicted for witness 
intimidation.  A second attorney represents him on that charge.  
On the Commonwealth's motion, and over Gonsalves's objection, a 
judge in the Superior Court consolidated the cases for trial.  
The Commonwealth then filed a motion to prohibit the two 
attorneys from engaging in duplicative trial procedures.  Again 
over Gonsalves's objection, the judge allowed that motion in 
large part, limiting Gonsalves to one opening statement and one 
closing statement, and ordering that, presumptively, only one 
defense attorney would examine or cross-examine each witness, 
unless leave is granted to conduct limited additional 
questioning.  Gonsalves's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition challenged 
this order.  The single justice denied relief on the ground that 
Gonsalves has an adequate remedy in the normal appellate 
process.   
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party 
challenging 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."  S.J.C. Rule 
2 
 
2:21 (2).  Gonsalves has not met his burden under the rule.  He 
argues, as to the merits of his petition, that the judge's order 
violates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but offers no 
reason why he could not obtain adequate review of that claim on 
appeal from any conviction, or why a new trial would not be an 
adequate remedy if his rights were indeed violated.  "The fact 
that . . . [the ordinary appellate] process might be time-
consuming and the outcome uncertain does not render the remedy 
inadequate."  Calzado v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 1033, 1034 
(2018).  The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion 
in denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Allison J. Koury for the petitioner.