Court Opinion

ID: 9943387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 15:15:10.106358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:56.890807
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13508

            SHARON CAMMILLE RIDDICK   vs.   COMMONWEALTH.

                        February 23, 2024.

   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

     Sharon Camille Riddick appeals from a judgment of the
county court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.1 We affirm the judgment.

     Riddick has been charged in the Boston Municipal Court
(BMC) with violating a harassment prevention order issued under
G. L. c. 258E. Although she previously had appointed counsel,
she is currently representing herself. Her motion to dismiss
was denied by a judge in the BMC. Riddick filed several other
pretrial motions in the BMC, with varying degrees of success.
In her G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Riddick sought permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in her criminal case, apparently
intending to challenge one or more pretrial rulings made by a
judge of the BMC.2 In particular, she claimed that the judge

     1 Riddick also moved for a stay of proceedings in the Boston
Municipal Court. The single justice denied that motion.
Riddick has not sought a stay from the full court, although she
could have done so. See Papp v. Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1019,
1019 n.1 (2023), citing Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174,
175 n.2 (1989).

     2 Before seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, Riddick
filed a petition seeking interlocutory review of the same
pretrial rulings in the single justice session of the Appeals
Court. That petition was denied on the ground that the Appeals
                                                                   2

abused his discretion by ruling against her motion for certain
subpoenas and by allowing the Commonwealth to withhold
exculpatory information.3 Riddick also requested that her
criminal case be dismissed.4 A single justice of this court
denied relief without a hearing.

     Because Riddick is appealing from the denial of relief from
a challenged interlocutory ruling of the trial court, she was
obligated to file a memorandum and appendix "set[ting] 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." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2),
as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). She did not file the
required memorandum but simply filed a brief, in which she
scarcely mentioned the existence of an alternative remedy.5
Nonetheless, it is clear on the record before us that Riddick
cannot make the required showing, as the challenged pretrial
rulings can be addressed on appeal from a final judgment if she
is convicted. See Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 1001,
1002 (2017). Similarly, as we have said many times, "[t]he
denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not
appealable until after trial, and . . . G. L. c. 211, § 3, may
not be used to circumvent that rule." Wallace v. Commonwealth,
492 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2023), and cases cited. Because Riddick
has an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process, the

Court single justice lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory
criminal matters.

     3 It is unclear from the docket to which motions Riddick is
referring. It appears, however, that she is challenging rulings
made at a hearing that took place on July 28, 2023, and a
further order denying clarification of those rulings. We
express no view as to the correctness of any pretrial ruling or
whether the Commonwealth was in possession of any exculpatory
information sought by Riddick.

     4 In addition, Riddick made numerous factual allegations
concerning certain judges of the BMC, a judge of the Housing
Court, and an assistant district attorney, but, as far as we are
able to discern, without requesting any particular relief
related to those allegations.

     5 Riddick's failure to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21 presents
a further reason not to disturb the judgment of the single
justice.
                                                                  3

single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by
denying extraordinary relief.

                                   Judgment affirmed.

     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by
a memorandum of law.
     Sharon Cammille Riddick, pro se.