Title: Dumas 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13302 
 
ROY DUMAS  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
December 29, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, Roy Dumas, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition, filed 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
In 2006, a jury in the Superior Court convicted the 
petitioner of kidnapping, rape of a child with force, and 
threatening to commit a crime.  The petitioner's convictions 
were affirmed on direct appeal, see Commonwealth v. Dumas, 78 
Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2011), and he did not seek further 
appellate review.  In 2014, the petitioner filed a motion for a 
new trial, pro se.  The motion was denied, and the petitioner 
then filed an amended motion for a new trial.  Thereafter, 
counsel was appointed to represent the petitioner, and counsel 
filed a third motion for a new trial.  That motion was denied.  
The petitioner appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the 
trial court's ruling in an unpublished decision.  See 
Commonwealth v. Dumas, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2017).  The 
petitioner applied for further appellate review, and the 
application was denied.  See Commonwealth v. Dumas, 476 Mass. 
1112 (2017).  Five years later, the petitioner filed the instant 
petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
arguing that the Appeals Court erred in its 2017 decision 
affirming the denial of his third new trial motion.  The 
petitioner requested that the matter be remanded to the Appeals 
Court for renewed consideration of the same legal arguments that 
it had previously rejected. 
2 
 
 
 
"Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
is extraordinary and to be 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."  Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  Here, the petitioner, by his own 
admission, has already received appellate review of the 
arguments at issue.  "The fact that he did not receive relief 
does not render the ordinary appellate process inadequate for 
purposes of G. L. c. 211, § 3."  Tavares v. Commonwealth, 481 
Mass. 1044, 1044 (2019). 
Accordingly, the single justice did not err or abuse his 
discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Roy Dumas, pro se. 
 
Donna-Marie Haran, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.