Title: In re Mitchell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12910
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12910 
 
IN THE MATTER OF CURTIS MITCHELL. 
 
 
April 22, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Curtis Mitchell (defendant) appeals from a judgment of the 
county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In 2008, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of 
various criminal offenses.  The Appeals Court reversed the 
convictions and remanded the matter for a new trial, and we 
denied further appellate review.  Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 79 
Mass. App. Ct. 1124, S.C., 460 Mass. 1110 (2011).  The 
Commonwealth subsequently filed a nolle prosequi as to all the 
charges.1  In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the defendant 
alleged that no crime had been committed, that he was falsely 
accused by the alleged victim, and that he was wrongfully 
                     
 
1 Due to a clerical error, a charge as to which the 
defendant had been acquitted was also listed on the docket as 
nol prossed.  The error was corrected by a subsequent order of 
the Superior Court.  In addition, the defendant filed a petition 
for expungement of several charges, including not only the ones 
that were the subject of the 2008 jury trial, but also other 
charges in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and 
the Superior Court.  A judge in the Superior Court granted the 
petition for expungement in part, but denied it as to the 
charges that were the subject of the 2008 trial.  To the extent 
we are able to discern, the defendant did not challenge the 
expungement decision in his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.  In any 
event, we see no reason why he could not have appealed from that 
decision in the ordinary course. 
2 
 
prosecuted, essentially due to racist attitudes.  It is 
difficult to identify any request for relief in his petition, 
but it appears that the defendant wishes to take a polygraph 
examination in the belief that he would thereby vindicate 
himself.2 
 
 
The defendant has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant 
to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Rule 
2:21 does not apply here, as the defendant is not challenging 
any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  Nonetheless, 
because it is clear on the record before us that the single 
justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying 
relief, we take this opportunity to affirm the judgment.  See 
Murphy v. Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2020).  The 
defendant has offered no legal authority supporting a polygraph 
examination in the circumstances of this case, nor has he 
demonstrated any entitlement to the exercise of our 
superintendence powers.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Curtis Mitchell, pro se. 
                     
 
2 The defendant also complained that a book he wrote and 
self-published about his experiences was "removed from the 
internet."  This claim is beyond the scope of our 
superintendence power over the lower courts. 
 
 
3 It appears that the defendant neither named as a party nor 
served his papers on the Commonwealth.  This presents a further 
reason not to disturb the single justice's decision.  See S.J.C. 
Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996) ("Any petition seeking to 
invoke the general superintendency power of the court pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3, shall name as respondents and make service 
upon all parties to the proceeding in the lower court, including 
in criminal cases the Commonwealth . . .").