Anthony RAFFAELE vs. COMMONWEALTH
Annotate this Case
Anthony RAFFAELE vs. COMMONWEALTH.
SJC-11606.
June 16, 2014.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
Anthony Raffaele, pro se.
Jane A. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Anthony Raffaele appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Raffaele pleaded guilty to certain offenses in the District Court. Allegedly, the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting him was, in 2003, a defendant in a Federal civil action commenced by Raffaele. Raffaele argues that the prosecutor should have disclosed this circumstance to the District Court judge and should have recused himself. He cites no authority for this proposition. He also claims that the prosecutor coerced him into accepting a plea offer. To the extent that Raffaele seeks to have his plea vacated, it is clear that any such request should be made in a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R.Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), subject to review in the ordinary appellate process. The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion by denying relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. [FN1]
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on briefs.
FN1. Moreover, Raffaele failed to provide the single justice with a record substantiating his allegations. "In seeking relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, it was the petitioner['s] burden to create a record--not merely to allege but to demonstrate, i.e., to provide copies of the lower court docket entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, orders, recordings, transcripts, or other parts of the lower court record necessary to substantiate [his] allegations--showing both a substantial claim of violation of a substantive right and that the violation could not have been remedied in the normal course of a trial and appeal or by other available means." Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied sub nom. Davis v. Tabachnick, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998), and cases cited.
END OF DOCUMENT
SJC-11606.
June 16, 2014.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
Anthony Raffaele, pro se.
Jane A. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
RESCRIPT.
Anthony Raffaele appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Raffaele pleaded guilty to certain offenses in the District Court. Allegedly, the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting him was, in 2003, a defendant in a Federal civil action commenced by Raffaele. Raffaele argues that the prosecutor should have disclosed this circumstance to the District Court judge and should have recused himself. He cites no authority for this proposition. He also claims that the prosecutor coerced him into accepting a plea offer. To the extent that Raffaele seeks to have his plea vacated, it is clear that any such request should be made in a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R.Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), subject to review in the ordinary appellate process. The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion by denying relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. [FN1]
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on briefs.
FN1. Moreover, Raffaele failed to provide the single justice with a record substantiating his allegations. "In seeking relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, it was the petitioner['s] burden to create a record--not merely to allege but to demonstrate, i.e., to provide copies of the lower court docket entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, orders, recordings, transcripts, or other parts of the lower court record necessary to substantiate [his] allegations--showing both a substantial claim of violation of a substantive right and that the violation could not have been remedied in the normal course of a trial and appeal or by other available means." Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied sub nom. Davis v. Tabachnick, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998), and cases cited.
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.
