Title: Riddick v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13508
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: February 23, 2024

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13508 
 
SHARON CAMMILLE RIDDICK  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
February 23, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
Sharon Camille Riddick appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.1  We affirm the judgment. 
 
 
Riddick has been charged in the Boston Municipal Court 
(BMC) with violating a harassment prevention order issued under 
G. L. c. 258E.  Although she previously had appointed counsel, 
she is currently representing herself.  Her motion to dismiss 
was denied by a judge in the BMC.  Riddick filed several other 
pretrial motions in the BMC, with varying degrees of success.  
In her G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Riddick sought permission to 
file an interlocutory appeal in her criminal case, apparently 
intending to challenge one or more pretrial rulings made by a 
judge of the BMC.2  In particular, she claimed that the judge 
 
1 Riddick also moved for a stay of proceedings in the Boston 
Municipal Court.  The single justice denied that motion.  
Riddick has not sought a stay from the full court, although she 
could have done so.  See Papp v. Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1019, 
1019 n.1 (2023), citing Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 
175 n.2 (1989). 
 
2 Before seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, Riddick 
filed a petition seeking interlocutory review of the same 
pretrial rulings in the single justice session of the Appeals 
Court.  That petition was denied on the ground that the Appeals 
 
2 
abused his discretion by ruling against her motion for certain 
subpoenas and by allowing the Commonwealth to withhold 
exculpatory information.3  Riddick also requested that her 
criminal case be dismissed.4  A single justice of this court 
denied relief without a hearing. 
 
 
Because Riddick is appealing from the denial of relief from 
a challenged interlocutory ruling of the trial court, she was 
obligated to file a memorandum and appendix "set[ting] 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."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), 
as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  She did not file the 
required memorandum but simply filed a brief, in which she 
scarcely mentioned the existence of an alternative remedy.5  
Nonetheless, it is clear on the record before us that Riddick 
cannot make the required showing, as the challenged pretrial 
rulings can be addressed on appeal from a final judgment if she 
is convicted.  See Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 1001, 
1002 (2017).  Similarly, as we have said many times, "[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."  Wallace v. Commonwealth, 
492 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2023), and cases cited.  Because Riddick 
has an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process, the 
 
Court single justice lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory 
criminal matters.   
 
3 It is unclear from the docket to which motions Riddick is 
referring.  It appears, however, that she is challenging rulings 
made at a hearing that took place on July 28, 2023, and a 
further order denying clarification of those rulings.  We 
express no view as to the correctness of any pretrial ruling or 
whether the Commonwealth was in possession of any exculpatory 
information sought by Riddick. 
 
4 In addition, Riddick made numerous factual allegations 
concerning certain judges of the BMC, a judge of the Housing 
Court, and an assistant district attorney, but, as far as we are 
able to discern, without requesting any particular relief 
related to those allegations.   
 
5 Riddick's failure to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21 presents 
a further reason not to disturb the judgment of the single 
justice. 
 
3 
single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by 
denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Sharon Cammille Riddick, pro se.