Quigley v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Petitioner’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary relief.

Petitioner, who charged with several motor vehicle offenses, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the police failed to file the citations in a timely manner. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner then filed this petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 of setting forth the reasons why relief could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12543 THOMAS QUIGLEY vs. COMMONWEALTH. October 16, 2018. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Thomas Quigley appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Quigley has been charged in the District Court with several motor vehicle offenses. He filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the police failed to file the citations with the court in a timely manner, as required by G. L. c. 90C, § 2. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing, and Quigley's petition ensued. We affirm. The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Quigley has not met his burden under the rule. "The denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, and we have indicated many times that G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent that rule. Unless a single justice decides the matter on the merits or reserves and reports it to the full court, neither of which occurred here, a defendant cannot receive review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the denial of his motion to dismiss." Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002), and cases cited. We have recognized a limited exception to this rule in cases raising a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit, see Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175-176 (1989), but 2 that exception does not apply here.1 If Quigley is convicted of any offense, there is no reason he cannot raise his claims on direct appeal and, if warranted, obtain relief. "The fact that . . . this process might be time-consuming and the outcome uncertain does not render the remedy inadequate." Calzado v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 1033, 1034 (2018). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary relief. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Elliot Savitz for the petitioner. Unlike a double jeopardy claim, Quigley's claim does not concern a right not to be tried. See Soucy v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 1025, 1026 (2015), and cases cited. 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.