Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/453/453mass1014.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:28:27+00:00

Document:
Joshua Fitzpatrick 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.
for lack of jurisdiction. Fitzpatrick's petition to the county court challenged these interlocutory rulings.
Charles W. Groce, III, for the petitioner.
[Note 1] Fitzpatrick also filed a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court pending this appeal. In light of the result we reach today, we take no action on the motion to stay.
[Note 2] There exists an exception to this rule in cases where a "criminal defendant raises a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit." Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174 , 175 (1989). A defendant is entitled to raise such a claim before retrial. Id. We have declined, however, to extend this limited exception to other types of claims. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Commonwealth, 450 Mass. 1003 (2007) (statute of limitations); Bateman v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 1024 (2007) (sufficiency of evidence before grand jury); Cousin v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1046 (2004) (speedy trial); King v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1043 (2004) (preindictment delay); Gouin v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1013 (2003) (subject matter jurisdiction). Fitzpatrick does not argue that his claim is analogous to a double jeopardy claim.
[Note 3] In two cases concerning the transfer procedure set forth in G. L. c. 119, § 61 (since repealed by St. 1996, c. 200, § 7), the court has addressed the merits of the juveniles' claims without definitively resolving the threshold question whether the juveniles had an adequate alternative remedy. Two Juveniles v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 736 (1980). A Juvenile v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 380 Mass. 552 (1980). In the former case, we affirmed a single justice's denial of relief on the merits and stated that it was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the matter "present[ed] a proper occasion for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3." Two Juveniles v. Commonwealth, supra at 747. In the latter case, deciding the case on the substantive merits was appropriate because the single justice had reserved and reported the case and because the issues transcended the particular facts of the juvenile's case and raised a "question of proper transfer practice, involving the working relation between two departments of the Trial Court [that] call[ed] peculiarly for supervision and settlement by us . . . ." A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, supra at 556. Here, there was no reservation and report by the single justice; there is no systemic question concerning proper transfer procedure under G. L. c. 119, § 72A; and it plainly is necessary to determine whether Fitzpatrick has an adequate alternative remedy, for that is the sole issue before the court under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).

References: § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 61
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 72