Document: 421 U.S. 193 95 S.Ct. 1534. 44 L.Ed.2d 76 Steven COSTARELLI, Appellant,v.Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS. No. 73—6739. Argued March 17, 1975. Decided April 28, Robert W. Hagopian, Wrentham, Mass., for appellant. David A. Mills, Danvers, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 Under Massachusetts procedure, a 'two-tier' system is utilized trial variety criminal charges. The initial under this in county district court or the Municipal Court City Boston. No jury available these courts, but persons who are convicted them may obtain de novo trial, with jury, appropriate superior by lodging an 'appeal' that court.1 At all issues law and fact must be determined anew not affected disposition. In effect, taking appeal vacates judgment, leaving defendant position defendants other States which require prosecution to present its proof before jury.2 2 January 1974, appellant Costarelli was charged knowing unauthorized use motor vehicle, offense Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 90 § 24(2)(a) (Supp.1975). carries maximum sentence $500 fine two years' imprisonment, subject two-tier described above. Prior Court, moved trial. motion denied resulted judgment guilty. A one-year prison imposed. thereupon lodged Superior Suffolk County. 3 Without awaiting proceedings appealed Court,3 seeking establish Sixth Fourteenth Amendments his first whether it Court. He also raised speedy double jeopardy contentions as bars retrial jury. On October 21, we postponed further consideration question jurisdiction hearing on merits. 419 893, 171, 42 137. We now dismiss want jurisdiction. Title 28 U.S.C. 1257 limits our review highest state decision could had, conclude such judgment. 4 That higher might have been had case established recent Supreme Judicial Massachusetts, Whitmarsh v. Commonwealth, 316 N.E.2d 610 (1974), another sought relief from Massachusetts' system. After conviction without tier, took immediate constitutional As one potential basis court's jurisdiction, he asserted power 'general superintendence courts inferior correct prevent errors abuses therein if no remedy expressly provided.' 211, (1958) (emphasis added). rejected ground provided. It stated: 5 'The issue plaintiff asks us decide same District dismiss. If were denied, thereafter tried found guilty, would him opportunity appellate ruling matter right saving perfecting exceptions thereto.' N.E.2d, at 613 (footnote omitted). 6 thus clear can raise dismiss, adverse through high court. mooted acquittal is, course, consequence, since important purpose requirement only final judgments interference when underlying dispute otherwise resolved. Cf. Republic Gas Co. Oklahoma, 334 62, 67, 68 972, 92 L.Ed. 1212 (1948); Gorman Washington University, 98, 100—101, 62 962, 86 1300 (1942). 7 argues resort outlined should unnecessary, because cannot produce believes entitled. opinion alternative proceed Once occurred error would, fears, cured, least mooted. 8 But think contention confuses argument substantive relating application 1257. undoubtedly contemplates event deny Costarelli's motion, then just surely him, precisely Whether afforded proceeding 'cured' 'mooted' federal claim law, determination initially ultimately second-tier terminated does mean draft own rules procedure order those deems appropriate. affords method may, necessary, appropriately preserve assertion therefore, 'the State had' claim. Since has court, lack case. 9 Appellant relies language Largent Texas, 318 418, 63 667, 87 873 (1943), support contrary result. reviewed County Lamar County, Tex. did so Texas state-court provided conviction. noted habeas corpus test constitutionality face ordinance Mrs. convicted, applied her particular 10 'Since there practice, called attention reviewing appellant, record made properly here (1257(2)) Code.' Id., 421, 669 11 collateral need not, Largent, satisfy highest-court requirement. 12 Appellant's reliance misplaced. went say: 13 distinct suit. disposed charge. possibility release subsequent proceeding, nature pending charge, different affect finality existing obtained Bandini 284 8, 14, 52 103, 105, 136; Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 70, 49 61, 64, 73 184.' U.S., 422, 669. 14 plainly distinguishable. Here finally dispose suit proceeding. instead based complaint reason sharply limited scope. Similarly, Co., cited 'distinct suit' writ prohibition litigable lower 15 Here, contrary, circumscribed narrower than normal appellate-type broad permit relitigation aspects charged, they factual legal. breadth review, narrowness, Greater identity difficult imagine, strange indeed class form 'collateral' sense traditionally thought 'collateral attack' 16 dismissed 17 So ordered. 18 Appeal dismissed. 19 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS part See 218, 27A, 278, (Supp.1975); 18A (1972). Unlike situation Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 1953, 32 584 (1972), avoided plea guilty waiving several respects remains effect despite appeal. particular, points facts defaults first-tier becomes legal imposing sentence, eliminate consequences revocation parole driver's permit. These matters do result announce today, merit discussion. There some way petition certiorari rather 1257(2), validity statute drawn favor validity. denial operation custom practice. resolve issue, disposition—if denominated appeal, treat papers certiorari, 2103, applies petitions well appeals.

Category: 8