Narrative Opinion Summary
Joseph Keane's appeal from the denial of his petition under G. L. c. 211. 3 has been affirmed. Keane sought relief from two specific orders: one from a District Court judge who dismissed his appeal as untimely, and another from a single justice of the Appeals Court who denied his motion to file a late notice of appeal. Both issues can be addressed through the standard appellate process, which Keane has begun by filing notices of appeal and requesting relevant records. The court emphasized that relief under G. L. c. 211. 3 cannot be used merely as an alternative to normal appellate review. As such, the single justice did not abuse her discretion in denying the petition, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretion of Single Justicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The single justice of the Appeals Court did not abuse her discretion in denying the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211. 3.
Reasoning: As such, the single justice did not abuse her discretion in denying the petition, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.
Relief Under G. L. c. 211. 3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that relief under G. L. c. 211. 3 is not appropriate when standard appellate processes are available and being pursued.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that relief under G. L. c. 211. 3 cannot be used merely as an alternative to normal appellate review.
Timeliness of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's appeal was dismissed for being untimely, and his subsequent motion to file a late notice of appeal was denied, both of which are issues that can be addressed through the standard appellate process.
Reasoning: Keane sought relief from two specific orders: one from a District Court judge who dismissed his appeal as untimely, and another from a single justice of the Appeals Court who denied his motion to file a late notice of appeal.