Nathan Marquis LeBARON vs. COMMONWEALTH
Annotate this Case
Nathan Marquis LeBARON vs. COMMONWEALTH.
SJC-11599
June 2, 2014.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
The case was submitted on the briefs.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron, pro se.
Paul C. Wagoner, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. LeBaron was convicted in the Superior Court of various sex offenses. He argues, as he did before the single justice, that numerous legal and constitutional errors occurred in those proceedings. [FN1] Each of LeBaron's claims can be raised in his direct appeal, which is currently pending in the Appeals Court. [FN2] There is no basis to grant extraordinary relief. "Our power under G.L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances and provides neither a substitute for the ordinary appellate process nor 'an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.' " Chen v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 1002 (2012), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).
Judgment affirmed.
FN1. LeBaron made other requests before the single justice, such as requests for further discovery and for software for use in preparing his appellate brief. His brief to the full court presents no argument that the single justice erred or abused his discretion by denying these requests or any other relief.
FN2. At the time the case was submitted to us, LeBaron was proceeding pro se in the Appeals Court. He represents that the Committee for Public Counsel Services has since indicated that it will appoint counsel for him.
END OF DOCUMENT
SJC-11599
June 2, 2014.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
The case was submitted on the briefs.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron, pro se.
Paul C. Wagoner, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Nathan Marquis LeBaron appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. LeBaron was convicted in the Superior Court of various sex offenses. He argues, as he did before the single justice, that numerous legal and constitutional errors occurred in those proceedings. [FN1] Each of LeBaron's claims can be raised in his direct appeal, which is currently pending in the Appeals Court. [FN2] There is no basis to grant extraordinary relief. "Our power under G.L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances and provides neither a substitute for the ordinary appellate process nor 'an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.' " Chen v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 1002 (2012), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).
Judgment affirmed.
FN1. LeBaron made other requests before the single justice, such as requests for further discovery and for software for use in preparing his appellate brief. His brief to the full court presents no argument that the single justice erred or abused his discretion by denying these requests or any other relief.
FN2. At the time the case was submitted to us, LeBaron was proceeding pro se in the Appeals Court. He represents that the Committee for Public Counsel Services has since indicated that it will appoint counsel for him.
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.
