Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Haliendrew FLORES v. COMMONWEALTH.
Haliendrew Flores (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from an interlocutory ruling of a judge in the Superior Court. We affirm.
Along with a codefendant,1 the petitioner has been charged with murder in the first degree and other offenses. He filed a motion for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant to whom a third party allegedly confessed to the killing. At first, the judge attempted to facilitate an interview between defense counsel and the informant under conditions that would protect the informant's anonymity. The informant, however, declined to participate, and so the petitioner renewed his motion for disclosure of the informant's identity. The judge denied the motion, and the petitioner sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
The petitioner has filed a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires him to “set 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.”2 The petitioner cannot make this showing, as he has a remedy in the ordinary appellate process. The denial of the petitioner's motion was an ordinary pretrial ruling, reviewable (and, if warranted, remediable) on direct appeal from any conviction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 472 Mass. 827, 846-851, 37 N.E.3d 1064 (2015), S.C., 482 Mass. 838, 129 N.E.3d 847 (2019) (reviewing denial of motion for disclosure of informant's identity and remanding for further proceedings on that issue). It is well established that G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not a substitute for the ordinary appellate process. E.g., Pinney v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 1029, 1030, 170 N.E.3d 285 (2021). The petitioner argues that in his case, the ordinary appellate process is inadequate due to his young age (nineteen), the lengthy duration of the process, and the likelihood that he would be imprisoned pending appeal during a developmentally crucial time. “The fact that ․ [the ordinary appellate] process might be time-consuming and the outcome uncertain does not render the remedy inadequate.” Gonsalves v. Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 1025, 1026, 108 N.E.3d 468 (2018), quoting Calzado v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 1033, 1034, 97 N.E.3d 683 (2018). Similarly, the ordinary process is not inadequate merely because the petitioner might be imprisoned during that time, as this is a prospect faced by any young person accused of a serious offense.3 Cf. Brea v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1012, 1013, 41 N.E.3d 310 (2015), quoting Rosencranz v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 1011, 1012, 34 N.E.3d 727 (2015) (“collateral consequences attendant to the pendency of criminal proceedings ․ do not necessarily render the regular appellate process inadequate”). Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The codefendant did not participate in the county court proceedings or in this appeal.
2. The petitioner was obligated to file, and properly did file, such a memorandum even though the single justice denied relief on the merits without addressing the threshold question whether the petitioner lacked an adequate alternative remedy. We express no view as to whether the motion for disclosure of the informant's identity was properly denied.
3. Moreover, nothing prevents the petitioner, if he is convicted, from seeking a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal.
RESCRIPT
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: SJC-13550
Decided: April 16, 2024
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)