McCants v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.

In 1974, Petitioner was convicted of several crimes in two different cases. In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial in each of the two cases. The trial court denied the motions, and the Appeals Court affirmed. Petitioner then filed this petition raising the same issues that he had raised in the Appeals Court. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to review under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3.

Download PDF

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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) 5571030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12553 OWEN McCANTS vs. COMMONWEALTH.1 October 15, 2018. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. The petitioner, Owen McCants, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. In 1974, McCants was convicted of several crimes, including rape and armed robbery, in two different cases. In 2014, he filed a motion for a new trial in each of the two cases. A judge in the trial court consolidated the motions and denied them. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the motions, and we subsequently denied McCants's application for further appellate review. See Commonwealth v. McCants, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2017), S.C., 478 Mass. 1109 (2018). McCants then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, raising essentially the same issues that he had raised in the Appeals Court. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. McCants has now filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Even though rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation, because McCants is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court, it is clear that he is not entitled to review pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He has already obtained appellate review of the denial of his consolidated motions for a new trial. To the The petitioner named the Superior Court Department as the respondent. The court is a nominal party only. See S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996). 1 2 extent that he raises certain additional issues in the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition that he did not raise in any of the earlier proceedings in the trial court or the Appeals Court, there is no reason why he could not have done so in those proceedings. "Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course." Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Owen McCants, pro se.

Primary Holding

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that where Petitioner was not entitled to review under the statute, the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.