AHART v. COMMONWEALTH (2026)

The petitioner, Larry C. Ahart, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. In his petition, Ahart sought relief from the order of a District Court judge allowing Ahart's motion for reconsideration of his sentence. We affirm.

In April 2002, Ahart pleaded guilty to one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b). He was sentenced to one year of probation. Subsequently, he was charged with a new criminal offense, and on the basis of that charge, he was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to serve eighteen months in a house of correction. Ahart represented that the judge imposing that sentence explained that if Ahart was found not guilty of the new charge, he could move for reconsideration of the sentence imposed for his probation violation.

After serving a portion of that sentence, Ahart was found not guilty of the new charge, and he moved for reconsideration. The judge allowed Ahart's motion and resentenced him to two years of probation. Ahart later stipulated to violating the terms of that probation, and in May 2003, the judge reimposed the original sentence of eighteen months’ incarceration with credit for time served.

In February 2015, Ahart moved the District Court to vacate the order granting his earlier request for reconsideration, arguing that the District Court lacked the authority to grant his request because his motion had been brought outside the sixty-day time limit imposed by Mass. R. Crim. P. 29 (a), 378 Mass. 899 (1979). That motion was denied, and Ahart appealed from the denial. In 2017, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it was moot. See Commonwealth v. Ahart, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1105, 89 N.E.3d 1204 (2017) (memorandum and order pursuant to rule 1:28). In April 2024, Ahart moved this court for permission to file a late application for further appellate review, and his motion was denied.

In January 2026, Ahart filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, asking a single justice of this court to vacate the order allowing Ahart's motion for reconsideration of his sentence. The single justice denied the petition on the grounds that it did not raise exceptional circumstances and that adequate alternative relief had been available to Ahart in the ordinary course of appeal, which Ahart had already pursued. Ahart now appeals from the judgment of the single justice.

The single justice correctly denied the petition because adequate alternative relief was available to Ahart in the ordinary course of appeal. Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not to be used “as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.” Dumas v. Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1008, 1009, 199 N.E.3d 446 (2022), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001, 826 N.E.2d 199 (2005). Moreover, where Ahart pursued that alternative, “[t]he fact that he did not receive relief does not render the ordinary appellate process inadequate for purposes of G. L. c. 211, § 3.” Dumas, supra, quoting Tavares v. Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 1044, 1044, 116 N.E.3d 1215 (2019). We therefore affirm the judgment of the single justice denying the petition.

Judgment affirmed.