Dew v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking review of the superior court judge’s orders on his motions filed in connection with his motion for a new trial, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying the petition.

Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking of a person for sexual servitude and other charges. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, seeking to withdraw his pleas, and filed several additional motions in connection with that motion. A single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where Petitioner had an adequate alternative avenue to seek review, his petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 was properly denied.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12506 ANTHONY J. DEW vs. COMMONWEALTH. October 30, 2018. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Anthony Dew pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to multiple counts of trafficking of a person for sexual servitude, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 50 (a); assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (b); drug distribution, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, §§ 32 (a) and 32A (a); and other charges. He subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, seeking to withdraw his pleas. In connection with that motion, he filed several additional motions seeking postconviction discovery, appointment of counsel, judicial notice, and a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, all of which were denied. He then filed a petition in the county court for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking review of the Superior Court judge's orders on the latter motions. A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing. Dew appeals. We affirm. Our power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, where a petitioner demonstrates both a substantial violation of a substantive right and the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. See Watson v. Walker, 447 Mass. 1014, 1014 (2006). Relief is properly denied where, as here, the petitioner has an adequate alternative avenue to seek review. See Tavares v. Commonwealth, 478 Mass. 1024, 1024 (2018). "An established route for the petitioner to obtain appellate review of the denial of his motion for postconviction discovery [and the other motions ancillary to his motion for a new trial] would be in 2 connection with an appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial." Donald v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1007, 1007 (2002).1 The single justice therefore neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying the petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Anthony J. Dew, pro se. After the single justice of this court denied Dew's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, a judge of the Superior Court denied his motion for a new trial. Dew has appealed from that ruling, and his appeal is currently pending in the Appeals Court. He can raise all of his claims in that appeal. 1

Primary Holding

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.