Title: Goodwin 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12768 
 
ROY GOODWIN  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
November 21, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Execution of sentence, Stay of 
proceedings. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Roy Goodwin, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, in which he sought a stay of execution of 
sentence pending appeal.  We affirm. 
 
 
A Superior Court jury convicted Goodwin of numerous counts 
of unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, in 
violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m), as well as several other 
crimes.  The trial judge sentenced him to concurrent sentences 
of from one to two and one-half years on the large capacity 
feeding device convictions and to three years' probation on the 
other convictions.  Goodwin filed a notice of appeal the same 
day that he was sentenced, February 14, 2019.  He subsequently 
filed a motion for clarification, which the judge allowed on 
March 29, 2019 and a motion to revise or revoke sentence, which 
the judge denied on April 17, 2019.  Goodwin then filed his 
petition seeking to stay the execution of sentence in the county 
court on April 29, 2019, which the single justice denied on June 
17, 2019. 
 
 
Goodwin has now filed what appears to be a memorandum and 
appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 
1301 (2001), but he is not challenging an interlocutory ruling 
of the trial court.  Although rule 2:21 does not apply here, it 
is clear that Goodwin is not entitled to review pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, because he has an adequate alternative 
 
 
remedy.  The proper place for Goodwin to seek a stay of 
execution of his sentence, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 31, as 
appearing in 454 Mass. 1501 (2009), and Mass. R. A. P. 6 (b), as 
appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019), is, in the first instance, 
in the trial court and, if such motion is denied, with a single 
justice of the court in which the direct appeal is to be heard, 
in this case, the Appeals Court.1  In point of fact, after the 
single justice denied Goodwin's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, 
Goodwin filed, in the trial court, a motion for a stay of 
execution of sentence, on July 15, 2019.  After the trial judge 
denied the motion, Goodwin filed a motion to stay with a single 
justice of the Appeals Court, on July 31, 2019.  The single 
justice denied the motion (and on Goodwin's motion for 
reconsideration, again denied the stay), and Goodwin has now 
appealed, as is his right pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6 (b) (3), 
to a panel of the Appeals Court.2 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
                                                 
 
1 Rule 6 (b) (1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate 
Procedure provides in relevant part: 
 
"In criminal cases, an application for a stay of execution 
of a sentence pending appeal must ordinarily be made in the 
first instance in the lower court. A motion for such relief 
may be made to the single justice of the appellate court to 
which the appeal is being taken, but the motion shall show 
that application to the lower court for the relief sought 
is not practicable, or that the lower court has previously 
denied an application for a stay or has failed to afford 
the relief which the applicant requested with the reasons 
given by the lower court for its action." 
 
 
2 We note, as well, that although Goodwin appears in this 
court pro se, he was represented by counsel at trial and is 
represented by counsel on appeal.  (Indeed, his counsel filed 
the motions to stay execution of sentence in the trial court 
and, subsequently, the Appeals Court.)  Goodwin does not have a 
right to "hybrid" representation, in part by counsel and in part 
pro se, and, where he is represented by counsel, we are under no 
obligation to entertain his pro se filings.  See, e.g., 
Commonwealth v. Molhino, 411 Mass. 149, 152-153 (1991).  See 
also Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 448 Mass. 538, 543 (2007) 
("defendant acknowledges that, while he was still represented by 
counsel, the court was entitled to ignore [his] pro se 
filings"). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Roy Goodwin, pro se.