Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Miranda v. A Justice of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-047-18)

Posted on March 27, 2018

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12308

 

CHRISTIAN MIRANDA  vs.  A JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.

 

 

 

March 27, 2018.

 

 

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari.  Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief, Discovery.

 

 

Christian Miranda appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  Miranda, who has been convicted in the Superior Court of certain drug-related offenses, filed a motion to intervene in a separate criminal case also pending in the Superior Court at that time, apparently seeking to participate in postconviction discovery that was proceeding in that case.  After a hearing, the motion was denied.  Miranda’s petition sought relief from that denial.  As there is no basis in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or other law for a defendant to intervene in another defendant’s unrelated criminal case, Miranda cannot show that relief in the nature of certiorari is necessary “to correct [a] substantial error of law apparent on the record.”  State Bd. of Retirement v. Woodward, 446 Mass. 698, 703 (2006).  See Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218, 227 n.14 (2004) (intervention is “a concept foreign to criminal procedure”).  Moreover, Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), provides the mechanism for Miranda to seek postconviction discovery in his own case.  The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying relief.

 

Judgment affirmed.

 

 

Greg T. Schubert for the plaintiff.

Thomas E. Bocian, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Full-text Opinions

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. สินค้ากิฟฟารีน on What Sold in the South End: Gray Street Condo for $641K
  2. Giffarine on Beliveau v. Ware (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-074-15)
  3. สินค้ากิฟฟารีน on Commonwealth v. Muir (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-146-13)
  4. กิฟฟารีน on One Fund Boston Receives 259 Victim Claims
  5. อาหารเสริม on Commonwealth v. Doty (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-129-15)
©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