Title: Zenon 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11953 
 
ABINEL ZENON  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
February 4, 2016. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Abinel Zenon appeals from a judgment of a single justice of 
this court denying his petition for relief from a protective 
order issued by a judge in the District Court.  Zenon was 
charged with assault and battery and other offenses.  He sought 
certain third-party records in support of his claim that the 
alleged victim was in fact the first aggressor.  See 
Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005).  The judge 
issued the protective order concerning these records, apparently 
following the Dwyer protocol.  Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 
122, 139-147 (2006).  See id. at 147-150 (Appendix).  Zenon 
filed various motions in the District Court for relief from the 
protective order; these motions were only partially successful.  
Zenon's petition followed.  Treating the petition as one filed 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, the single justice denied relief 
without a hearing.  Zenon has since pleaded guilty to the 
charges.1  We affirm the judgment of the single justice. 
 
 
Zenon has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires a petitioner seeking relief from 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."  Passing the question whether the rule 
applies here, where the criminal case was resolved after the 
single justice made her decision, it is clear that Zenon had an 
                     
 
1 One charge was dismissed. 
adequate alternative remedy.  At the time of the single 
justice's decision, the charges were still pending.  Had Zenon 
been tried and convicted of any offense, he could have 
challenged the protective order on direct appeal.  See Rodriguez 
v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1029, 1030 (2007) (discussing 
postconviction relief available under Dwyer protocol).  If Zenon 
believes that the records have any continuing significance now 
that the charges have been resolved, he could move in the 
District Court for termination or modification of the protective 
order and, if such a motion is denied, appeal in the ordinary 
course from that ruling.  Similarly, if he has a basis to do so, 
Zenon remains free to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to 
Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), and 
to appeal from any adverse ruling thereon.  "The court's 
extraordinary power of general superintendence under c. 211, 
§ 3, is 'exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal 
appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of 
appellate review after the normal process has run its course.'"  
Doyle v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 1002, 1003 (2015), quoting 
Norris v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1007, 1008 (2006). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Dana Goldblatt for the petitioner.