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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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.