Title: Muldoon 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13404 
 
EMMETT S. MULDOON  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
May 28, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Emmett S. Muldoon, appeals from a judgment 
of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  The petitioner pleaded guilty 
to aggravated rape and other offenses in 1996.  In 2014, he 
moved for a new trial.  A judge of the Superior Court denied 
that motion; the Appeals Court affirmed in an unpublished 
decision, Commonwealth v. Muldoon, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 
(2018); and we denied further appellate review, 480 Mass. 1108 
(2018).  He thereafter filed motions in this court seeking 
reconsideration of the denial of further appellate review or 
leave to file a second application for further appellate review.  
We denied those motions.1  The petitioner's G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition sought relief from those rulings.  By the plain 
language of G. L. c. 211, § 3, however, this court's 
extraordinary superintendence power extends only to "courts of 
 
 
1 To the extent the petitioner suggested in his petition 
that the court was required under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., to consider 
his request to file a second or successive application for 
further appellate review as an accommodation for certain 
disabilities, we disagree.  Here, the petitioner did not seek an 
equal opportunity to argue for further appellate review; rather, 
he sought greater opportunities than are available to 
others.  Such an accommodation is not required. 
  
  
2 
 
inferior jurisdiction" (emphasis added).  The single justice 
thus had no authority to review a decision of the full court.  
Moreover, the power conferred by G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not 
"provide an additional layer of appellate review after the 
normal process has run its course."  Votta v. Police Dep't of 
Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  The petitioner has had 
all the review to which he is entitled as to the denial of his 
motion for a new trial.  The single justice neither abused his 
discretion nor committed other error of law by denying 
extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Emmett S. Muldoon, pro se.