Posts tagged "Afrasiabi"

Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-067-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12146 SJC-12147   KAVEH L. AFRASIABI  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.     May 3, 2017.     The petitioner, Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, is the defendant in a criminal case in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department in which he is charged with criminal harassment in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a).  In response to certain actions and rulings in the trial court he filed two separate petitions in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In the first petition, he asked the court “to order the removal” of the presiding trial court judge as well as the assistant district attorney representing the Commonwealth.  In the second, he asked the court to reverse several trial court rulings denying his motions for discovery.  The same single justice denied both petitions without a hearing, and Afrasiabi appeals.[1]   The two G. L. c. 211, § 3, petitions at issue here are the fourth and fifth such petitions that Afrasiabi has filed in the county court seeking extraordinary relief from interlocutory trial court rulings or otherwise related to ongoing trial court proceedings.  See Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1016, 1017 (2015); Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 1007, 1007  (2013); Afrasiabi v. Rooney, 432 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2000).  In each of the previous cases, his petition was denied; he appealed to the full court; the appeal was subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001); and Afrasiabi failed to comply with the rule.[2]  So too here.  As Afrasiabi is well aware, the rule requires that an appellant file “a memorandum of not more than ten pages . . . in which the appellant must 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.”  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  Although he has filed a document in this case entitled “memorandum,” the document appears in all respects to be a brief.  Moreover, it utterly fails to address the single issue that is the focus of rule 2:21:  why review of the trial court rulings at issue here cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from a final adverse judgment.   Afrasiabi’s failure to address the adequate alternative remedy issue is basis alone for us to “decline to disturb […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 3, 2017 at 10:48 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-208-15)

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-11982 KAVEH L. AFRASIABI  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. December 31, 2015. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.      The petitioner, Kaveh Afrasiabi, is the defendant in a criminal case in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department in which he is charged with a single count of criminal harassment in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a).  He filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging, among other things, that the clerk‑magistrate heard and considered perjured testimony at the show cause hearing and issued the complaint on that basis.[1]  A judge in the District Court denied the motion.  The petitioner then filed a pleading in the county court seeking relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, which a single justice of this court denied without a hearing.  The petitioner now appeals to the full court from the judgment of the single justice.   This is the third time that this petitioner has pursued an appeal to the full court that is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), but has failed to comply with the rule.  See Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 1007, 1007 (2013); Afrasiabi v. Rooney, 432 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2000).  The rule requires an appellant to file a memorandum setting 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.”  The petitioner has not filed such a memorandum; instead, he simply refiled in the full court the exact same pleading he filed in the county court — with the original date crossed out and a new date written in — which completely fails to address the single issue identified by the rule.  “Failure to comply with the rule in a case where it applies is a separate and sufficient reason for us to decline to disturb the single justice’s judgment.”  Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001), cited with approval in Afrasiabi v. Rooney, supra.   The petitioner fares no better on the merits.  Here, as in the petitioner’s two previous cases, the single justice properly declined to employ the court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence because the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.  Specifically, he can challenge the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 31, 2015 at 4:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-174-13)

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‑11389   KAVEH L. AFRASIABI  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.     September 17, 2013.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.       The petitioner, Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.   Afrasiabi was charged in a complaint with criminal harassment in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a).  He thereafter filed numerous motions in the District Court including, among other things, several motions to dismiss; a motion for a change of venue; motions to compel documents; and a motion for a “show cause” hearing, all of which were denied.  Afrasiabi subsequently filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court asking the court to stay the trial; to change venue; to compel discovery; and to order a “probable cause” hearing.[1]  The single justice denied the petition.     This appeal is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires the appellant to file “a memorandum of not more than ten pages . . . in which the appellant must 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.”  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  Afrasiabi has failed to comply with the requirements of the rule.  As an initial matter, he has filed a full brief pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 16, as amended, 428 Mass. 1603 (1999), rather than a preliminary memorandum in compliance with rule 2:21.[2]  Furthermore, to the extent that he even addresses the issue of adequate appellate review, he argues only that there are discrepancies in the Commonwealth’s case and that it would be unfair to subject him to a trial without first holding a hearing.  Even if Afrasiabi were entitled to such a hearing, the failure to hold one, and the trial court’s denial of his request for one, are matters that can be addressed in a direct appeal.  See Commonwealth v. Irick, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 132-133 (2003), citing Commonwealth v. Leger, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 232, 242 (2001).  The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.   Judgment affirmed.     Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, pro se, submitted a […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 18, 2013 at 12:33 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,