Title: Martinez v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12071
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: July 26, 2016

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12071 
 
JONATHAN MARTINEZ  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
July 26, 2016. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Discovery, Subpoena. 
 
 
 
Jonathan Martinez appeals from a judgment of a single 
justice in the county court denying, without a hearing, his 
petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Martinez stands 
indicted for several drug offenses.  Pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. 
P. 17 (a) (2), 378 Mass. 885 (1979), he moved for issuance of a 
subpoena, seeking certain statistical data maintained or 
controlled by the registry of motor vehicles, which he claimed 
would be relevant to support his claim that he was subjected to 
selective enforcement and racial profiling.1  A judge in the 
Superior Court denied the motion.  Martinez's G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition followed.  We affirm the judgment. 
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires Martinez to "set 
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."  Martinez has 
                     
 
1 Martinez also filed a motion pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 
14, as appearing in 442 Mass. 1518 (2004), seeking an order that 
the Commonwealth produce similar information maintained by the 
Braintree police department.  That motion was denied by the same 
judge, as was a motion for reconsideration.  Martinez filed a 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition challenging those rulings (first 
petition), which a different single justice denied without a 
hearing.  Martinez did not appeal from that judgment to the full 
court.  The first petition is thus not before us. 
2 
 
not done so.  If Martinez is convicted of any offense, he will 
have the opportunity to raise his issues in the ordinary 
appellate process.2  Discovery matters such as this are routinely 
addressed on direct appeal.  See Deming v. Commonwealth, 438 
Mass. 1007, 1007 (2002), citing Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514, 
517 n.3 (1998) (discovery disputes generally not appropriate for 
review under G. L. c. 211, § 3).  The single justice neither 
erred nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
In addition, Martinez has not filed a memorandum pursuant 
to rule 2:21, but has filed only what appears to be a copy of 
the petition he filed in the county court.  This does not comply 
with the rule.  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2) ("The record appendix shall 
be accompanied by eight copies of a memorandum . . . in which 
the appellant must set forth the reasons why review of the trial 
court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal . . . or 
by other available means" [emphasis added]).  "The purpose of 
this requirement is to focus the court's and counsel's attention 
on the narrow question whether, regardless of the merits of the 
substantive claim of error, the petitioner has an adequate 
remedy apart from resort to G. L. c. 211, § 3."  McDonald v. 
Commonwealth, 450 Mass. 1020, 1021 (2008).  Martinez's failure 
to comply with the rule presents a further reason not to disturb 
the judgment of the single justice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Christopher L. Malcolm for the petitioner. 
 
                     
 
2 Martinez suggests that if he is acquitted of all charges, 
he will not have this opportunity to obtain appellate review.  
In that circumstance, however, any selective enforcement will 
not have caused him any harm remediable in the criminal 
proceeding.  This does not provide a basis for extraordinary 
relief.