Massachusetts SJC Shuts Down Another Post-Conviction Shortcut: Pike v. Divris (SJC-13811, November 18, 2025)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) just dropped a crisp, four-page reminder that the extraordinary relief valve of G. L. c. 211, § 3 is not a substitute for doing the ordinary post-conviction work — and habeas corpus is definitely not a backdoor appellate do-over.

The Underlying Conviction

In October 2022, a Plymouth County jury convicted Christopher Pike of a series of deeply serious charges:

• Aggravated rape of a child (G. L. c. 265, § 23A)
• Assault with intent to rape a child
• Indecent assault and battery on a child under 14
• Furnishing alcohol to a minor
• Accosting or annoying a person

He received a 12-to-14-year state prison sentence. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished Rule 1:28 decision in 2024 (Commonwealth v. Pike, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 1102), and two counts were later dismissed as duplicative.

The Juror Issue That Started It All

Pike’s current crusade centers on an incident during jury deliberations: the trial judge dismissed a deliberating juror without, Pike claims, holding the full hearing and making the specific findings required by Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838 (1984) and its progeny. Pike says this violated his right to a jury of twelve and invalidated the verdict.

The Procedural Detour

Instead of raising the juror-dismissal claim in his already-filed direct appeal or filing a standard motion for new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) — the normal, accepted way to litigate trial errors after appeal — Pike took a far less traveled (and far less successful) path:

1. He filed a separate civil petition for writ of habeas corpus in Superior Court, arguing the convictions were void because of the allegedly improper juror discharge.
2. The Superior Court judge denied habeas relief and explicitly told him to bring the claim via Rule 30.
3. Pike ignored that advice and ran straight to the SJC’s single-justice session with a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition asking the court to reverse the habeas denial.
4. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing.
5. Pike appealed to the full SJC.

The SJC’s Decision – Short, Sharp, and Unsparing

On November 18, 2025, the full court unanimously affirmed the single justice in an opinion that reads like a greatest-hits compilation of why these petitions almost always fail.

Key takeaways from the decision:

1. Adequate alternative remedies kill c. 211, § 3 petitions The court listed, in painful detail, the multiple ordinary avenues Pike still had (and still has):
   • Appeal the habeas denial directly to the Appeals Court (it was a separate civil action).
   • File a Rule 30(b) motion for new trial raising the juror issue.
   • If necessary, reconstruct the record (the SJC noted the electronic docket and transcripts already contain the relevant information).
2. Habeas corpus is not an appellate substitute Citing a long, unbroken line of cases (Pires, Aldrich, Betts, etc.), the court reiterated that habeas relief in Massachusetts is extraordinarily narrow. It is available only for challenges “distinct from the issues at the indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing stage.” An alleged error in handling a deliberating juror is a classic trial-stage claim — not some exotic, extra-procedural defect that only habeas can reach.
3. Jury deliberations are still part of “trial” Pike tried to argue that because deliberations happen after the close of evidence, they are somehow separate from the “trial” stage. The SJC swatted that away in one sentence, citing its own 2025 Betts decision: alleged errors during deliberations are trial errors, full stop.
4. No abuse of discretion by the single justice When a single justice denies c. 211, § 3 relief on discretionary or procedural grounds, the full court reviews only for abuse of discretion or clear error of law. Here there was neither.

Bottom Line for Practitioners and Pro Se Litigants

The SJC continues to be uncompromising:

• If you have (or had) a direct appeal, a Rule 30 motion, or even a regular appeal from a habeas denial — use it.
• G. L. c. 211, § 3 is reserved for the truly extraordinary — cases where no other relief is available or possible (think gatekeeper denials, double-jeopardy violations about to occur, etc.).
• Trying to repackage ordinary trial-error claims as habeas petitions and then demanding single-justice superintendence relief when habeas is denied is a proven losing strategy.

Final Disposition

Judgment of the single justice affirmed. Pike remains incarcerated, and the merits of his juror-dismissal claim have still never been reviewed — because he keeps filing in the wrong place. The SJC essentially told him (again): go file a Rule 30 motion like everyone else.

Case citation: Pike v. Divris, SJC-13811 (Nov. 18, 2025). Slip opinion available here when posted to the SJC website.

For criminal appellate lawyers, this is another data point in the ever-growing pile of cases showing that the court is serious about channeling post-conviction claims into the ordinary process — no shortcuts, no exceptions, no mercy for procedural creativity that ignores the rules.