Schumacher v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-065-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12248   DAVID SCHUMACHER  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Sex Offender.  Practice, Civil, Sex offender, Civil commitment.     May 3, 2017.     David Schumacher appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In 2013, Schumacher was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a term in the State prison.  The Commonwealth filed a petition in the Superior Court for Schumacher’s civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, alleging that he had been convicted of sex offenses in Florida.  On the Commonwealth’s motion, a judge in the Superior Court issued an order temporarily committing Schumacher to the Massachusetts Treatment Center (treatment center) pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 12 (e), pending a probable cause determination.  Schumacher moved for reconsideration and for relief from temporary commitment, and that motion was denied.  Schumacher’s G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, seeking interlocutory relief from the order for temporary commitment, followed.  The single justice denied relief without reaching the merits of Schumacher’s claims on the ground that he has an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process.  We affirm.   The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires Schumacher to “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.”  He has not done so.  Schumacher argues that, due to his temporary commitment to the treatment center, he is being deprived of a liberty interest in a way that cannot be remedied in the ordinary appellate process.  He relies on Gangi v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 158 (2012), and Coffin v. Superintendent, Mass. Treatment Ctr., 458 Mass. 186 (2010), in each of which we permitted interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the denial of a motion to dismiss a c. 123A petition.[1]  That reliance is misplaced.  Schumacher did not move to dismiss the Commonwealth’s c. 123A petition, but only challenged the order of temporary commitment.[2]   More importantly, not every interlocutory order in a sexually dangerous person case — not even every motion to dismiss — is subject to immediate review […]

Read more...