Title: Perez-Acevedo v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12576
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 2018

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12576 
 
ENRIQUE PEREZ-ACEVEDO  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 15, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Enrique Perez-Acevedo, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Perez-Acevedo pleaded guilty, in May, 2016, on one 
indictment charging trafficking in a class A substance, in 
violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (c); and five indictments 
charging distribution of a class A substance, in violation of 
G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a).  In December, 2017, he filed a motion to 
withdraw his guilty pleas and for a new trial, which was denied.  
He appealed from the denial of that motion, but, on his own 
motion, the appeal was subsequently dismissed.1  He also filed, 
in June, 2018, a motion for release from unlawful restraint 
pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 
1501 (2001).  After that motion was denied, he filed, in this 
court, an "application for writ of mandamus pursuant to ch. 211, 
sec. 3 by a single justice."  In the petition he argued that he 
had not received a fair hearing in the trial court on his motion 
for release from unlawful restraint, as well as that he had 
received ineffective assistance of counsel.  (Although it is not 
entirely clear from the record, this appears to be in reference 
to Perez-Acevedo's plea counsel.)  The single justice treated 
the application as a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and 
denied it without a hearing. 
                                                 
 
1 Prior to the dismissal of his appeal, he also filed an 
application for direct appellate review, which this court denied 
in May, 2018. 
2 
 
 
 
 
Perez-Acevedo has now filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  
Even though rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation, because 
he is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial 
court, it is clear that he is not entitled to review pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly 
denied where, as here, "there are other routes by which the 
petitioning party may adequately seek relief."  Sabree v. 
Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000).  Perez-Acevedo 
appears to be arguing that because of the magnitude of the 
purported errors, only this court can properly review the 
circumstances and provide relief.  His arguments to the contrary 
notwithstanding, this case does not present the type of 
exceptional circumstance that requires the exercise of this 
court's extraordinary power of general superintendence pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  There is no reason why he cannot seek 
relief in the Appeals Court in an appeal from the denial of his 
motion for release from unlawful restraint.  Indeed, as the 
single justice himself noted, Perez-Acevedo has already 
commenced just this process by filing a notice of appeal in the 
trial court. 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Enrique Perez-Acevedo, pro se.