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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12910

IN THE MATTER OF CURTIS MITCHELL.

April 22, 2020.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Curtis Mitchell (defendant) appeals from a judgment of the 

county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief 

under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In 2008, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of 

various criminal offenses. The Appeals Court reversed the 

convictions and remanded the matter for a new trial, and we 

denied further appellate review. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 79 

Mass. App. Ct. 1124, S.C., 460 Mass. 1110 (2011). The 

Commonwealth subsequently filed a nolle prosequi as to all the 

charges.1 In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the defendant 

alleged that no crime had been committed, that he was falsely 

accused by the alleged victim, and that he was wrongfully 

 

1 Due to a clerical error, a charge as to which the 

defendant had been acquitted was also listed on the docket as 

nol prossed. The error was corrected by a subsequent order of 

the Superior Court. In addition, the defendant filed a petition 

for expungement of several charges, including not only the ones 

that were the subject of the 2008 jury trial, but also other 

charges in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and 

the Superior Court. A judge in the Superior Court granted the 

petition for expungement in part, but denied it as to the 

charges that were the subject of the 2008 trial. To the extent 

we are able to discern, the defendant did not challenge the 

expungement decision in his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. In any 

event, we see no reason why he could not have appealed from that 

decision in the ordinary course.
2

prosecuted, essentially due to racist attitudes. It is 

difficult to identify any request for relief in his petition, 

but it appears that the defendant wishes to take a polygraph 

examination in the belief that he would thereby vindicate 

himself.2

The defendant has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant 

to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Rule 

2:21 does not apply here, as the defendant is not challenging 

any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Nonetheless,

because it is clear on the record before us that the single 

justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying 

relief, we take this opportunity to affirm the judgment. See 

Murphy v. Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2020). The 

defendant has offered no legal authority supporting a polygraph 

examination in the circumstances of this case, nor has he 

demonstrated any entitlement to the exercise of our 

superintendence powers.3

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Curtis Mitchell, pro se.

 

2 The defendant also complained that a book he wrote and 

self-published about his experiences was "removed from the 

internet." This claim is beyond the scope of our 

superintendence power over the lower courts.

3 It appears that the defendant neither named as a party nor 

served his papers on the Commonwealth. This presents a further 

reason not to disturb the single justice's decision. See S.J.C. 

Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996) ("Any petition seeking to 

invoke the general superintendency power of the court pursuant 

to G. L. c. 211, § 3, shall name as respondents and make service 

upon all parties to the proceeding in the lower court, including 

in criminal cases the Commonwealth . . .").