A sex offender convicted in Superior Court sought extraordinary relief from the Supreme Judicial Court under General Laws chapter 211, section 3, claiming numerous legal and constitutional errors in his trial. He also requested additional discovery and software to assist with his pending direct appeal.
The court affirmed the single justice’s denial of relief. The court held that chapter 211, section 3 authority is reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances and does not provide a substitute for or additional layer of ordinary appellate review. Because LeBaron’s claimed trial errors could be raised in his direct appeal then pending in the Appeals Court, there was no basis for granting exceptional relief under that statute.
The full text of the opinion follows below. Slip opinions are subject to formal revision; the official version is published in the official reports.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11599
NATHAN MARQUIS LeBARON vs. COMMONWEALTH.
June 2, 2014.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. LeBaron was convicted in the Superior Court of various sex offenses. He argues, as he did before the single justice, that numerous legal and constitutional errors occurred in those proceedings.[1] Each of LeBaron’s claims can be raised in his direct appeal, which is currently pending in the Appeals Court.[2] There is no basis to grant extraordinary relief. “Our power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances and provides neither a substitute for the ordinary appellate process nor ‘an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.’” Chen v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 1002 (2012), quoting Votta v. Police Dep’t of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on the briefs.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron, pro se.
Paul C. Wagoner, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
[1] LeBaron made other requests before the single justice, such as requests for further discovery and for software for use in preparing his appellate brief. His brief to the full court presents no argument that the single justice erred or abused his discretion by denying these requests or any other relief.
[2] At the time the case was submitted to us, LeBaron was proceeding pro se in the Appeals Court. He represents that the Committee for Public Counsel Services has since indicated that it will appoint counsel for him.