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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13401

NICKOYAN WALLACE vs. COMMONWEALTH.

May 25, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Nickoyan Wallace1 has been indicted for murder in the first 

degree for the shooting death of a person in Boston, and related 

offenses. In the Superior Court, he filed "by Special 

Appearance" a document entitled "Notice of Default and 

Opportunity to Cure re Affidavit -- 'Writ of Quo Warranto' re 

Proof of Claim/Jurisdiction." In general, he claimed that the 

courts of the Commonwealth lack jurisdiction over him;2 in an 

affidavit filed in the case, Wallace declared that he is a "Free 

Sovereign and Private Great Seal Moor." The Superior Court 

judge treated the filing as a motion to dismiss and denied it. 

Wallace then filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to 

G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking review of the Superior Court judge's 

order.3 A single justice of this court denied the petition, and 

Wallace appeals. We affirm.

1 In his petition, Wallace identified himself as "'Szyon 

Nkrumah, Al © All Rights Reserved,' Indigenous, Free Sovereign 

and Private Great Seal Moor, in propria persona, sui juris (not 

pro se or colorable); Secured Party, Third Party 

Intervenor/Administrator for WALLACE, NICKOYAN ©."

2 Wallace bases his claim on myriad treaties, laws, and 

constitutional provisions. He also claims a treaty right to 

"Consular assistance" in this matter. We do not consider the 

substantive merits of his claims at this interlocutory stage.

3 The Superior Court's docket reflects that Wallace also 

filed a notice of appeal.
2

Wallace has filed a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 

2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001),4 which applies where, as 

here, a "single justice denies relief from a challenged 

interlocutory ruling in the trial court." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (1). 

We therefore consider whether Wallace has demonstrated, as the 

rule requires, "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." S.J.C. Rule 

2:21 (2). He failed to meet that burden.

We have said many times that "[t]he denial of a motion to 

dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, 

and . . . G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent that 

rule." Soucy v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 1025, 1025 (2015), 

quoting Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002). 

That principle is no less applicable where the claims asserted 

involve jurisdictional issues. Such questions are "routinely 

addressed on direct appeal after a final judgment." Calzado v. 

Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 1033, 1034 (2018). See Salomon S.A. v. 

LaFond, 463 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2012) (ordinary appellate process 

"not per se inadequate to vindicate a claim of lack of personal 

jurisdiction"); Gouin v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1013, 1013 

(2003), and cases cited (subject matter jurisdiction claims 

"routinely addressed . . . on direct appeal following 

conviction"). See also Fitzpatrick v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 

1014, 1015 (2009). "[U]nless a single justice decides the 

matter on the merits or reserves and reports it to the full 

court, neither of which occurred here, a defendant cannot 

receive review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the denial of his 

motion to dismiss."5 Calzado, supra, quoting Bateman v. 

Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1024, 1024-1025 (2007).

4 The rule also requires that "[t]he appeal shall be 

presented . . . on the papers filed in the single justice 

session" and that the petitioner must file a record appendix. 

S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Wallace failed to file a record appendix 

containing the record before the single justice. See Bishay v. 

Land Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032, 1033 n.2 

(2017) ("[t]his presents a further reason not to disturb the 

judgment").

5 We have recognized a limited exception to this rule, where 

a "criminal defendant . . . raises a double jeopardy claim of 

substantial merit." Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 

175 (1989). That exception does not apply to the jurisdictional 

claims asserted here. See Gouin, 439 Mass. at 1013 (subject 
3

Nothing in Wallace's petition under G. L. c. 211, 

§ 3, required exercise of the court's extraordinary power of 

general superintendence, and the single justice was warranted in 

denying it.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Nickoyan Wallace, pro se.

matter jurisdiction claim not comparable to protection against 

double jeopardy); Meuse v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1004, 1004-

1005 (2002).