Doyle v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-110-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11787 CHRISTOPHER S. DOYLE vs. COMMONWEALTH. July 6, 2015. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Habeas Corpus. Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Double jeopardy, Duplicative convictions, Assistance of counsel. Christopher S. Doyle (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court summarily denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of breaking into a depository in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 16; possession of burglarious tools, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 49; and malicious destruction of property, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 127. The Appeals Court affirmed the first two convictions and reversed the malicious destruction of property conviction. See Commonwealth v. Doyle, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 384, 393 (2013). A Superior Court judge thereafter granted a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. There is no indication on the trial court docket that he appealed from that ruling. Instead, the petitioner filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court requesting that his convictions be vacated and that he immediately be released from confinement.[1] The petition alleged that the Superior Court judge erred in dismissing the writ without an evidentiary hearing; that the convictions violated his right against double jeopardy because the same underlying conduct formed the basis for revocation of his probation in an unrelated matter; that the convictions are duplicative and the sentences are unlawful; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief. To the extent the petition can be viewed as seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, the errors claimed in the petition either were or could have been raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal, or in a motion for postconviction relief under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).[2],[3] See Englehart v. Commissioner of Correction, 453 Mass. 1007, 1007 (2009); Hicks v. Commissioner of Correction, 425 Mass. 1014, 1014-1015 (1997). Where adequate remedies alternative to G. L. c. 211, § 3, are available, relief properly is denied. To the extent the petition […]