Blackwell v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges. Petitioner later filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where Petitioner could have raised his claims and sought to withdraw his pleas on the basis of his claims by filing a motion for a new trial and by appealing from any adverse ruling on such a motion, Petitioner’s petition 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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12491 CHRISTOPHER BLACKWELL vs. COMMONWEALTH. February 8, 2019. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Plea. The petitioner, Christopher Blackwell, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. In 2011, Blackwell pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges in the Superior Court. More than six years later, he filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, alleging that certain evidence relating to the charges could have and should have been suppressed. He claims that his counsel advised him at the time that a motion to suppress the evidence would not have been successful; that he was unaware that a motion to suppress was in fact filed; that he was not present at an evidentiary hearing on the motion; and that he was not properly advised before pleading guilty that interlocutory review of the denial of a motion to suppress was possible. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. He also denied Blackwell's request for reconsideration. A request to exercise the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy. See McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178, 184-185 (2008). See also Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). The single justice correctly denied relief in this case because Blackwell had an adequate alternative remedy. He could have raised his claims, and sought to withdraw his pleas on the basis of those claims, by filing a 2 motion for a new trial in the Superior Court under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), and by appealing to the Appeals Court from any adverse ruling on such a motion. See Commonwealth v. Huot, 380 Mass. 403, 406 (1980) ("A motion for new trial is the appropriate device for attacking the validity of a guilty plea"); Commonwealth v. Chetwynde, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (1991) (addressing issues associated with suppression motion, including allegedly improper advice of counsel, on appeal from denial of motion seeking to withdraw guilty plea). Judgment affirmed. Christopher Blackwell, pro se. Colby Tilley, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

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.