Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/477/477mass1028.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:47:59+00:00

Document:
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Capital case.
In February, 2016, Zagranski filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Relief Pursuant to [G. L. c.] 211, § 3," in the county court in which he claimed that the transcript of the hearing at which the trial judge considered the conflict of interest issue was not a part of the record that was before this court when it considered his direct appeal. In Zagranski's view, the court was thus not able to fulfil its duty pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to review "the whole case" because the court did not have a complete record of the trial court proceedings. A single justice denied the petition on the bases that Zagranski has an adequate alternative remedy -- to seek postconviction relief in the trial court -- and that his petition did not, in any event, raise a "new and substantial" issue that would entitle him to review pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Zagranski has appealed from the single justice's denial of his petition; the Commonwealth has moved to dismiss the appeal.
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
[Note 1] The conflict of interest issue was considered by the trial judge at the time of trial, but the fact that Zagranski did not raise it in his direct appeal did not preclude his raising it in his motion for a new trial where the same counsel represented him both at trial and in the direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Edgardo, 426 Mass. 48 , 49-50 (1997), and cases cited.
[Note 2] Zagranski's petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was also denied.
[Note 3] We think it worth noting that Zagranski has previously raised the conflict of interest issue in his earlier motion for postconviction relief. It will be incumbent on him to show that his current argument regarding the record is not simply an attempt to make an end-run around the denial of his earlier motion and denial of leave to appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

References: § 3
 § 33
 § 33
 § 3
 v. 
 § 33