Title: Garden v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12821
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2020

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12821 
 
TYRONE GARDEN  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
April 22, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, Tyrone Garden, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition for 
extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In substance, 
Garden sought an order from the single justice vacating his 2012 
plea to aggravated rape and dismissing the underlying 
indictment, which was obtained after the expiration of the 
applicable statute of limitations.  We affirm. 
 
The issues raised by Garden have all been raised and 
adjudicated through the normal appellate process.  Garden filed 
a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the Superior Court in 
2017, on the same grounds raised here.  The motion was denied, 
and the defendant appealed.  The Appeals Court affirmed the 
denial.  See Commonwealth v. Garden, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 
(2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1365 (2019).  This court denied 
further appellate review.  Commonwealth v. Garden, 480 Mass. 
1107 (2018).  It is well established that this court's 
superintendence power is not available as an additional layer of 
appellate review once all other avenues have been exhausted.  
See Tavares v. Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 1044, 1045 (2019); Fort 
v. Commonwealth, 455 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2009); Votta v. Police 
Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  "Our general 
superintendence power cannot be invoked simply to get another 
bite of the apple."  Votta v. Commonwealth, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 
(2005).1 
                                                          
 
 
1 Garden also raised the statute of limitations issue in a 
prior petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, filed in an 
2 
 
 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Tyrone Gardner, pro se. 
 
Ellyn H. Lazar, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
                                                          
 
attempt to obtain interlocutory review of the denial of his 
motion to dismiss the indictment in Superior Court.  We affirmed 
the denial of that petition on the ground that Garden's claims 
could be raised and decided during the ordinary course of trial 
and appeal.  Garden v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1018, 1019 
(2011).  To the extent the present petition can be viewed as a 
motion for reconsideration of that decision, the single justice 
was well within his discretion to deny it, as it was filed over 
seven years after the issuance of that opinion.