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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11834

KERR CARRINGTON vs. COMMONWEALTH.

July 17, 2015.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Kerr Carrington appeals from a judgment of a single justice 

of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 

relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

After a jury trial in the Superior Court, Carrington was 

convicted of larceny of a motor vehicle.1 The Commonwealth nol 

prossed so much of the indictment as alleged a second or

subsequent offense. Contending that the Commonwealth could not 

properly nol pros only a portion of the indictment and that this 

is a systemic issue affecting the proper administration of the 

judiciary, Carrington filed motions pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. 

P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), and, before the 

motions were acted on, filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. 

At least one of his motions has since been denied by a different 

judge in the Superior Court, the trial judge having retired.

Carrington has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 

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

requires an appellant seeking relief from interlocutory rulings 

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." The rule does not apply here, as Carrington 

 

1 The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction in an 

unpublished decision, and this court denied further appellate 

review. Commonwealth v. Carrington (No. 1), 82 Mass. App. Ct. 

1106, S.C., 463 Mass. 1107 (2012).
2

is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. 

The entry of the nolle prosequi was the prosecutor's decision, 

not the judge's, and it finally resolved that portion of the 

indictment, the remainder of which was finally resolved by his 

conviction. Nonetheless, it is clear that Carrington has an 

adequate alternative remedy. As he acknowledges in his 

memorandum, he asserted the same claims by motion in the 

Superior Court as he did in his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. He 

is entitled to appeal any adverse rulings on his motions, 

provided that he timely filed a notice of appeal or receives an 

enlargement of time to do so.

2 The single justice neither erred 

nor abused her discretion by denying extraordinary relief.3

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Kerr Carrington, pro se.

 

2 The Superior Court docket indicates that Carrington has 

filed a notice of appeal.

3 To the extent that Carrington requests a broader, systemic 

review of unlawful practices he alleges exist in the trial 

court, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 

declining to order such a review. We have reviewed the record 

and are satisfied that the issues raised by Carrington can be, 

and are better suited to be, reviewed on a case-by-case basis.