Title: McCants 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12553 
 
OWEN McCANTS  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.1 
 
 
October 15, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Owen McCants, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In 1974, McCants was convicted of several crimes, including 
rape and armed robbery, in two different cases.  In 2014, he 
filed a motion for a new trial in each of the two cases.  A 
judge in the trial court consolidated the motions and denied 
them.  The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the motions, and 
we subsequently denied McCants's application for further 
appellate review.  See Commonwealth v. McCants, 92 Mass. App. 
Ct. 1116 (2017), S.C., 478 Mass. 1109 (2018).  McCants then 
filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, 
raising essentially the same issues that he had raised in the 
Appeals Court.  The single justice denied the petition without a 
hearing. 
 
 
McCants has now filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Even 
though rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation, because 
McCants is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial 
court, it is clear that he is not entitled to review pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  He has already obtained appellate review of 
the denial of his consolidated motions for a new trial.  To the 
                                                 
 
1 The petitioner named the Superior Court Department as the 
respondent.  The court is a nominal party only.  See S.J.C. Rule 
2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996). 
2 
 
 
extent that he raises certain additional issues in the G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition that he did not raise in any of the 
earlier proceedings in the trial court or the Appeals Court, 
there is no reason why he could not have done so in those 
proceedings.  "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).   
 
 
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 the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Owen McCants, pro se.