Title: Souza v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11941
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: December 11, 2015

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11941 
 
ROBERT M. SOUZA  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
 
December 11, 2015. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
It appears from the sparse material before us, and from our 
review of the trial court docket, that the petitioner was 
convicted in the District Court in August, 2013, of four counts 
of violating an abuse prevention order.  He was sentenced in 
November, 2013.  His direct appeal was entered in the Appeals 
Court in September, 2014, and is currently pending there.  The 
petitioner is represented by counsel in that appeal. 
 
 
In May, 2015, the petitioner, acting on his own, filed a 
pleading in the county court entitled "Petition to Remand 
Sentence for Resentencing."  He averred in a supporting 
affidavit, among other things, that his sentences were "unduly 
harsh" and "much [too] severe all facts considered."  He also 
averred that his conviction was the product of ineffective 
assistance of his trial counsel.  He asked that a single justice 
of this court "review and reconsider the sentence[s]."  His 
petition was treated by the single justice as a petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and denied without a hearing.  He 
now appeals from the judgment of the single justice. 
 
 
The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion 
in denying the petition.  A defendant in these circumstances can 
challenge the legality of his or her sentence, and the 
constitutional effectiveness of his or her counsel, through the 
normal course of postconviction motions and appeals.  Beyond 
that, a defendant is not entitled to the extraordinary 
2 
 
 
intervention of this court to vacate or change a sentence that 
is legal but that the defendant feels is too harsh. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Robert M. Souza, pro se.