Sanchez v. Commonwealth
Annotate this Case
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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-13261 JORGE SANCHEZ vs. COMMONWEALTH. June 22, 2022. Moot Question. Jorge Sanchez appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We dismiss the appeal as moot. Sanchez was charged in the District Court with rape and other offenses. At his bail hearing, he requested a probable cause hearing on the ground that rape is an offense outside the District Court's jurisdiction. See G. L. c. 276, § 38; Commonwealth v. Perkins, 464 Mass. 92, 98, 103 (2013) (statute "provides for a probable cause hearing in cases where a defendant is charged with a crime in the District Court that lies beyond the jurisdiction of that court and for which the defendant is entitled to be proceeded against by indictment"; "probable cause hearing is to be held as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances presented"). His request was denied. Instead, a pretrial conference was scheduled. Sanchez's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition sought relief from the denial of a probable cause hearing. After the single justice denied relief, the defendant again requested, and was granted, a probable cause hearing date.1 Sanchez has thus received the specific relief he was seeking in his petition, rendering this appeal moot. See Santiago v. Young, 446 Mass. 1006, 1006 (2006). Appeal dismissed. The Commonwealth has since entered a nolle prosequi as to the rape charge. 1 2 Thomas Combs & Korrina Burnham, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Jorge Sanchez. Aimee Rose Maldonado, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
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.
