Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Azubuko v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-13)

Posted on February 21, 2013

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11255

 

CHISOM O. AZUBUKO  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.

February 20, 2013.

 

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Defendant pro se.

 

 

Chisom O. Azubuko filed, pro se, a document in the county court entitled “Defendant-Appellant’s Interlocutory Appeal on Confrontation Clause With a Known Confidential Informant — Sixth Amendment — [MCAP 15].”  This apparently relates to a criminal case in which he is represented by counsel that is pending against him in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department (District Court).  The document is disorganized and difficult to decipher.  It was not accompanied by copies of any of the relevant papers from the District Court case.  A single justice of this court denied relief without a hearing.  We affirm.

 

We have thoroughly reviewed what was submitted to the single justice, as well as the additional material that has been submitted to the full court.  There is no basis at all for disturbing the single justice’s judgment denying relief.  All of the interlocutory orders of the trial court that have been identified by Azubuko in his papers can adequately be reviewed, and remedied if appropriate, in a direct appeal after trial if Azubuko were to be convicted.  In addition, Azubuko is represented by counsel in the District Court.  Absent extraordinary circumstances, a party represented by counsel in pending criminal proceedings is not entitled to challenge interlocutory rulings pro se.  See Commonwealth v. Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 152 (1991) (“no constitutional right . . . to ‘hybrid representation,’ that is, representation in part by counsel and in part by oneself”).  There has been no showing whatsoever of any entitlement to, or need for, interlocutory appellate review in these circumstances.

 

 

Azubuko has failed to meet his most basic obligations as a petitioner in the county court and as an appellant in the full court.  Among other things, his brief fails to contain adequate appellate argument and his record appendix contains numerous items that were not before the single justice.  He is on notice that future filings that do not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure may subject him to sanctions, including the denial of oral argument and, possibly, the striking of his brief and dismissal of the appeal.

 

 

Judgment affirmed.

 

The case was submitted on briefs.

Chisom O. Azubuko, pro se.

 

Full-text Opinions

1 thought on “Azubuko v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-13)”

  1. Pingback: Fa Chai เกมสล็อตออนไลน์

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA – Summary
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER.
  • Commonwealth v. Palmer (AC 24-P-365) COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER – SUMMARY
  • Hello world!

Recent Comments

  1. this post on What Got You Talking This Week: Trash Pilot Program
  2. 11HILO เว็บพนันแบรนด์ on Commonwealth v. Mercier (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-098-15)
  3. Fa Chai on Commonwealth v. Estabrook (and nine companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-167-15)
  4. Fa Chai เกมสล็อตออนไลน์ on Azubuko v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-13)
  5. ทางเข้าพนัน 11HILO ศูนย์รวมเดิมพันออนไลน์ on Commonwealth v. Alcequiecz (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-106-13)
©2025 Massachusetts Legal Resources | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme

Powered by
...
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by