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.
Roy GOODWIN v. COMMONWEALTH.
The petitioner, Roy Goodwin, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in which he sought a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal. We affirm.
A Superior Court jury convicted Goodwin of numerous counts of unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m), as well as several other crimes. The trial judge sentenced him to concurrent sentences of from one to two and one-half years on the large capacity feeding device convictions and to three years' probation on the other convictions. Goodwin filed a notice of appeal the same day that he was sentenced, February 14, 2019. He subsequently filed a motion for clarification, which the judge allowed on March 29, 2019 and a motion to revise or revoke sentence, which the judge denied on April 17, 2019. Goodwin then filed his petition seeking to stay the execution of sentence in the county court on April 29, 2019, which the single justice denied on June 17, 2019.
Goodwin has now filed what appears to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), but he is not challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Although rule 2:21 does not apply here, it is clear that Goodwin is not entitled to review pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, because he has an adequate alternative remedy. The proper place for Goodwin to seek a stay of execution of his sentence, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 31, as appearing in 454 Mass. 1501 (2009), and Mass. R. A. P. 6 (b), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019), is, in the first instance, in the trial court and, if such motion is denied, with a single justice of the court in which the direct appeal is to be heard, in this case, the Appeals Court.1 In point of fact, after the single justice denied Goodwin's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Goodwin filed, in the trial court, a motion for a stay of execution of sentence, on July 15, 2019. After the trial judge denied the motion, Goodwin filed a motion to stay with a single justice of the Appeals Court, on July 31, 2019. The single justice denied the motion (and on Goodwin's motion for reconsideration, again denied the stay), and Goodwin has now appealed, as is his right pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6 (b) (3), to a panel of the Appeals Court.2
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
FOOTNOTES
1. Rule 6 (b) (1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:“In criminal cases, an application for a stay of execution of a sentence pending appeal must ordinarily be made in the first instance in the lower court. A motion for such relief may be made to the single justice of the appellate court to which the appeal is being taken, but the motion shall show that application to the lower court for the relief sought is not practicable, or that the lower court has previously denied an application for a stay or has failed to afford the relief which the applicant requested with the reasons given by the lower court for its action.”
2. We note, as well, that although Goodwin appears in this court pro se, he was represented by counsel at trial and is represented by counsel on appeal. (Indeed, his counsel filed the motions to stay execution of sentence in the trial court and, subsequently, the Appeals Court.) Goodwin does not have a right to “hybrid” representation, in part by counsel and in part pro se, and, where he is represented by counsel, we are under no obligation to entertain his pro se filings. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 152-153, 580 N.E.2d 383 (1991). See also Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 448 Mass. 538, 543, 862 N.E.2d 727 (2007) (“defendant acknowledges that, while he was still represented by counsel, the court was entitled to ignore [his] pro se filings”).
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-12768
Decided: November 21, 2019
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)