GUY L. SMITH vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT
Annotate this Case
GUY L. SMITH vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT.
SJC-11286.
December 26, 2012.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Execution of sentence, Sentence.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
Guy L. Smith, pro se.
RESCRIPT.
Guy L. Smith appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court declining to grant relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Before the single justice, Smith sought to stay a probation violation proceeding and other associated relief. While his petition was pending in the county court, the Superior Court found Smith to be in violation of his probation and sentenced him to a prison term of from four to six years.
In his appeal from the denial of relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, Smith seeks an order from this court staying the execution of his sentence and allowing him to conduct discovery. He has already filed a notice of appeal from the probation violation and sentence.
To the extent that Smith is seeking an order staying the execution of his sentence pending appeal, he can file that request with a Superior Court judge or with a single justice of the Appeals Court. Erickson v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 1006 (2012). As to his claim that the trial judge erred in denying him discovery, and his request for a discovery order, this issue can be addressed in his direct appeal. Id. at 1006-1007 (appeal from final disposition of claims concerning probation violation proceeding lies in the Appeals Court). The court's superintendence power under G.L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where, unlike the case here, adequate alternative remedies do not exist. Erickson v. Commonwealth, supra at 1006, citing McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995).
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in declining to grant the petitioner relief pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT
SJC-11286.
December 26, 2012.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Execution of sentence, Sentence.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
Guy L. Smith, pro se.
RESCRIPT.
Guy L. Smith appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court declining to grant relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Before the single justice, Smith sought to stay a probation violation proceeding and other associated relief. While his petition was pending in the county court, the Superior Court found Smith to be in violation of his probation and sentenced him to a prison term of from four to six years.
In his appeal from the denial of relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, Smith seeks an order from this court staying the execution of his sentence and allowing him to conduct discovery. He has already filed a notice of appeal from the probation violation and sentence.
To the extent that Smith is seeking an order staying the execution of his sentence pending appeal, he can file that request with a Superior Court judge or with a single justice of the Appeals Court. Erickson v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 1006 (2012). As to his claim that the trial judge erred in denying him discovery, and his request for a discovery order, this issue can be addressed in his direct appeal. Id. at 1006-1007 (appeal from final disposition of claims concerning probation violation proceeding lies in the Appeals Court). The court's superintendence power under G.L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where, unlike the case here, adequate alternative remedies do not exist. Erickson v. Commonwealth, supra at 1006, citing McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995).
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in declining to grant the petitioner relief pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT
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.
