Title: Sabree 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12300 
 
G. SAIF SABREE1  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
March 5, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Sentence. 
 
 
 
G. Saif Sabree appeals from the judgment of a single 
justice of this court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, denying 
him relief from State prison sentences that he claims were 
illegal.  We affirm. 
 
 
The procedural history of Sabree's case is extensive, and 
our summary is abbreviated.  On February 12, 1974, he was 
indicted on charges of rape, armed robbery, and armed assault in 
a dwelling.  See Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 87, 
88 (1976).  After a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts 
and sentenced to a life term for each offense, with the sentence 
for armed assault to run concurrently with the sentence for 
armed robbery, and the sentence for rape to run from and after 
the armed robbery sentence.2  For reasons that are not part of 
the record before us, the Appellate Division of the Superior 
Court reordered and amended the sentences by reducing the 
sentences for armed assault and armed robbery to concurrent 
terms of from six to ten years, and ordering that they take 
effect from and after the life sentence for rape.  The Appeals 
                                                          
 
 
1 Also known as Gary Mitchell.  See Sabree v. Commonwealth, 
432 Mass. 1003, 1003 n.1 (2000). 
 
 
2 The petitioner also was indicted for and convicted of 
assault by means of a dangerous weapon.  After trial, that 
indictment was placed on file with the petitioner's consent.  
Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 87, 88 (1976). 
2 
 
 
 
Court affirmed the convictions, see Nicholson, supra, as well as 
several subsequent orders denying his various motions for a new 
trial.  See Commonwealth v. Sabree, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1105 
(2008); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (1984); 
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 892 (1980).  Sabree 
also filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, which 
sought an order compelling the Superior Court to act on a 
pending motion.  That was denied because he failed to create a 
record to support his allegations.  See Sabree v. Commonwealth, 
432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000). 
 
 
In 2015, Sabree filed a motion in the Superior Court 
seeking substantially the same relief that he requested in the 
G. L. c.  211, § 3, petition now before us:  release from 
alleged unlawful restraint or correction of the sentences now 
being served, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), as appearing 
in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).  He also sought an evidentiary hearing 
and other relief.  Although there is some indication that the 
motions were denied, the judge's orders have not been entered on 
the docket.  The Superior Court's docket indicates that the 
proceedings have been stayed pending the filing and disposition 
of the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. 
 
 
A petitioner seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, bears 
the burden of demonstrating the absence of "other routes by 
which [he] may adequately seek relief."  Sabree v. Commonwealth, 
432 Mass. at 1003.  A petitioner must also create a record to 
substantiate his allegations.  Id. at 1004.  Sabree failed in 
both respects.  The single justice therefore correctly denied 
the petition.  See Commonwealth v. Samuels, 456 Mass. 1025, 1027 
n.1 (2010). 
 
 
The single justice properly denied relief because "the 
petitioner has [or had] other means by which to seek review of 
his claim that his sentence . . . is illegal -- in his direct 
appeal and in his rule 30 (a) motion and any appeal from the 
denial of that motion."  Commonwealth v. Jones, 461 Mass. 1005, 
1005-1006 (2012).  See Cucinelli v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 
1004, 1004 (2017).  As for his claim that his trial or appellate 
counsel were ineffective in failing to press issues concerning 
the alleged illegality of the sentences imposed by the Superior 
Court, or the Appellate Division's authority or jurisdiction to 
restructure and amend the sentences, he could have raised that 
claim in a postconviction motion pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 
30 (b), and an appeal from any adverse ruling.  He also failed 
to provide a record sufficient to evaluate his claims:  notably 
absent, for example, is any indication of what materials were 
3 
 
 
 
before the Appellate Division in 1974.  See Gorod v. Tabachnick, 
428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
G. Saif Sabree, pro se. 
 
Sarah Montgomery Lewis, Assistant District Attorney, for 
the Commonwealth.