SABREE v. COMMONWEALTH, 432 Mass. 1003 (2000)

731 N.E.2d 1074

G. SAIF SABREE[1] vs. COMMONWEALTH.

SJC-07848Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
July 12, 2000.

[1] Also known as Gary Mitchell.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts Practice, Civil, Record.

John P. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

G. Saif Sabree, pro se.

The petitioner, G. Saif Sabree, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G.L.c. 211, § 3, which sought an order compelling the Superior Court to act on a motion for a new trial that he alleges he filed with that court.[2] We affirm.

We have repeatedly held that relief under G.L.c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there are other routes by which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief. See, e.g., Matthews
v. D’Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022

Page 1004

(1997); Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996). We have also held that it is the petitioner’s burden to create a record — not merely to allege but to demonstrate by providing a copy of the lower court docket and any relevant pleadings — to substantiate his allegations. See, e.g., Lantsman v. Lantsman, 429 Mass. 1018, 1019 (1999); Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). The petitioner did not create such a record, and so the single justice correctly denied his petition. Notably absent was a copy of the lower court docket or anything else indicating that the petitioner had ever filed a third motion for a new trial with the Superior Court. The Commonwealth has provided us with a copy of the lower court docket; it does not reflect the filing of such a motion.[3]
Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

[2] The Commonwealth claims that a single justice does not have the authority to order relief in the nature of mandamus. This claim is without merit. The single justice clearly had the authority to act where the order sought would have been directed to a lower court. See G.L.c. 211, § 3. Cf. Empire Apartments, Inc. v. Gray, 353 Mass. 333, 335 (1967).
[3] Nothing we have said precludes the petitioner from now filing and serving his third motion for a new trial. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 30 (b), 378 Mass. 900 (1979).
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. BORGOS, 464 Mass. 23 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Borgos, 464 Mass. 23 (2012) Dec 21, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

2 months ago

COMMONWEALTH V. JONES, 464 Mass. 16 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Jones, 464 Mass. 16 (2012) Dec 18, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

2 months ago

CROCKER v. TOWNSEND OIL CO., 464 Mass. 1 (2012)

Charles Edward Crocker & another1 vs. Townsend Oil Company, Incorporated, & others.2 Essex. September 4, 2012.…

2 months ago

COMMONWEALTH v. BUSWELL, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Buswell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012) Dec 12, 2012 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · No. 10-P-1556…

2 months ago

XL Specialty Insurance Company v. Massachusetts Highway Department, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147 (2013)

XL Specialty Insurance v. Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Superior Court 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147…

4 months ago

CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, 464 Mass. 1008 (2013)

464 Mass. 1008 (2013)980 N.E.2d 928 SANDRA CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.…

4 months ago