Title: Quigley 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12543 
 
THOMAS QUIGLEY  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 16, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Thomas Quigley appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  Quigley has been charged in the District Court 
with several motor vehicle offenses.  He filed a motion to 
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the police failed to 
file the citations with the court in a timely manner, as 
required by G. L. c. 90C, § 2.  The motion was denied after an 
evidentiary hearing, and Quigley's petition ensued.  We affirm. 
 
 
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 
2:21 (2).  Quigley has not met his burden under the rule.  "The 
denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not 
appealable until after trial, and we have indicated many times 
that G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent that rule.  
Unless a single justice decides the matter on the merits or 
reserves and reports it to the full court, neither of which 
occurred here, a defendant cannot receive review under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, from the denial of his motion to dismiss."  Jackson 
v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002), and cases cited.  
We have recognized a limited exception to this rule in cases 
raising a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit, see 
Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175-176 (1989), but 
2 
 
 
that exception does not apply here.1  If Quigley is convicted of 
any offense, there is no reason he cannot raise his claims on 
direct appeal and, if warranted, obtain relief.  "The fact that 
. . . this 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. 
 
 
Elliot Savitz for the petitioner. 
 
 
 
                     
 
1 Unlike a double jeopardy claim, Quigley's claim does not 
concern a right not to be tried.  See Soucy v. Commonwealth, 470 
Mass. 1025, 1026 (2015), and cases cited.