Title: Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12308 
 
CHRISTIAN MIRANDA  vs.  A JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
 
 
 
March 27, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari.  Practice, 
Criminal, Postconviction relief, Discovery. 
 
 
 
Christian Miranda appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying his petition for relief in the nature of 
certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  Miranda, who has been 
convicted in the Superior Court of certain drug-related 
offenses, filed a motion to intervene in a separate criminal 
case also pending in the Superior Court at that time, apparently 
seeking to participate in postconviction discovery that was 
proceeding in that case.  After a hearing, the motion was 
denied.  Miranda's petition sought relief from that denial.  As 
there is no basis in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or other 
law for a defendant to intervene in another defendant's 
unrelated criminal case, Miranda cannot show that relief in the 
nature of certiorari is necessary "to correct [a] substantial 
error of law apparent on the record."  State Bd. of Retirement 
v. Woodward, 446 Mass. 698, 703 (2006).  See Republican Co. v. 
Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218, 227 n.14 (2004) (intervention is 
"a concept foreign to criminal procedure").  Moreover, Mass. R. 
Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), provides the 
mechanism for Miranda to seek postconviction discovery in his 
own case.  The single justice neither erred nor abused his 
discretion by denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Greg T. Schubert for the plaintiff. 
 
Thomas E. Bocian, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
defendant.