Title: Schajnovitz v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13299
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 2022

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13299 
 
AMIR SCHAJNOVITZ  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
December 1, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Dismissal. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Amir Schajnovitz, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Schajnovitz has been charged in a complaint with assault 
and battery on a family or household member, in violation of 
G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a); malicious destruction of property, in 
violation of G. L. c. 266, § 127; and intimidation of a witness, 
in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B.  The complaint issued in 
July 2020, and since that time Schajnovitz has filed, in the 
trial court, several motions to dismiss, each of which has been 
denied.  In his most recent motion, he argued that the complaint 
should be dismissed because it had not been signed by the police 
officer who had brought the complaint.  After a judge denied the 
motion, Schajnovitz filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the 
county court, arguing, among other things, that proceeding to 
trial on the basis of a nonconforming criminal complaint would 
violate his due process rights.  While the petition was pending, 
the parties appeared for a previously-scheduled status hearing 
in the trial court, and the previously unsigned complaint was 
signed and sworn in open court.  The single justice thereafter 
denied Schajnovitz's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. 
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that 
"review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be 
obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial 
2 
 
court or by other available means."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).1  
Schajnovitz has not made such a showing.  "The denial of a 
motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until 
after trial, and we have indicated many times that G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, may not be used to circumvent that rule.  Unless a single 
justice decides the matter on the merits or reserves and reports 
it to the full court, neither of which occurred here, a 
defendant cannot receive review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from 
the denial of his motion to dismiss."  Bateman v. Commonwealth, 
449 Mass. 1024, 1024-1025 (2007), quoting Jackson v. 
Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002).  See Ventresco v. 
Commonwealth, 409 Mass. 82, 83-84 (1991), and cases cited.  
There is no reason why Schajnovitz cannot obtain the relief he 
seeks, if warranted, in a direct appeal from any conviction.  
Additionally, Schajnovitz appears to be raising several issues 
in his appeal to this court that were not raised in the county 
court.  Where those issues were not raised before the single 
justice, we need not consider them.  See Carvalho v. 
Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1014, 1014 (2011), and cases cited. 
 
 
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. 
 
Amir Schajnovitz, pro se. 
 
 
1 Pursuant to rule 2:21, which applies here because 
Schajnovitz is challenging an interlocutory ruling in the trial 
court, Schajnovitz is required to file a memorandum setting 
forth the reasons why review cannot adequately be obtained from 
any adverse judgment.  Instead, Schajnovitz has filed a brief.  
Notwithstanding this fact, we treat the matter pursuant to rule 
2:21.