Ardaneh v. Commonwealth ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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    revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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) 557-
    1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
    SJC-13368
    HAMID REZA ARDANEH   vs.   COMMONWEALTH.
    August 8, 2023.
    Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
    The petitioner, Hamid Reza Ardaneh, appeals from a judgment
    of a single justice of this court denying his petitions pursuant
    to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and associated motions (collectively,
    petitions). We affirm.1
    In August 2016, Ardaneh was indicted on several counts of
    rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22; strangulation or
    suffocation, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15D (b); and other
    charges. See Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 
    486 Mass. 1005
    , 1005
    (2020) (Ardaneh [No. 1]). In 2017, he "was committed for
    observation to Bridgewater State Hospital for a determination
    whether he is competent to stand trial pursuant to G. L. c. 123,
    § 15 (a). He was subsequently found incompetent to stand trial
    and was committed to the hospital pursuant to G. L. c. 123,
    § 16." Id. In August 2022, Ardaneh was determined to be
    competent to stand trial, and the proceedings in the Superior
    Court are ongoing.
    1  "Where, as here, the single justice exercises discretion
    not to reach the merits of a petition, the appeal to the full
    court 'is strictly limited to a review of that ruling.'"
    Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 
    484 Mass. 1047
    , 1049 (2020), quoting
    Commonwealth v. Samuels, 
    456 Mass. 1025
    , 1027 n.1 (2010). We
    decline to consider "issues, arguments and requests for relief
    that were not before the single justice." Milton v. Boston, 
    427 Mass. 1016
    , 1017 (1998) (declining to address additional
    "issues, arguments, and requests for relief that were not before
    the single justice").
    2
    In his petitions, Ardaneh claims very generally and among
    other things that he has been falsely accused of the criminal
    conduct for which he was indicted; that he has exculpatory
    evidence to prove his innocence; that the evidence does not
    support the indictments; that his constitutional rights,
    including the right to effective assistance of counsel, have
    been violated; and that he has been improperly detained. On
    appeal, he essentially asks the court to intervene in the trial
    court proceedings to correct the claimed errors and violations,
    and for relief including a declaration that he is not guilty of
    the charged criminal conduct, dismissal of the criminal
    indictments, and orders expunging his criminal and mental health
    records, requiring the return of certain documents, and damages.2
    The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion
    in declining to reach the merits of the petitions and denying
    relief. See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 
    482 Mass. 22
    , 25 (2019).
    The court's "general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211,
    § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a
    substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide
    an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process
    has run its course. Fennick v. Kittredge, 
    460 Mass. 1012
    (2011), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 
    444 Mass. 1001
    , 1001 (2005)." Bishay v. Land Court Dep't of the Trial
    Court, 
    477 Mass. 1032
    , 1033 (2017). Predicate to its exercise,
    a party seeking extraordinary relief must demonstrate both
    "'error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review
    process' and a 'substantial claim of violation of [his]
    substantive rights.' Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc.
    v. Operation Rescue, 
    406 Mass. 701
    , 706 (1990), quoting Dunbrack
    v. Commonwealth, 
    398 Mass. 502
    , 504 (1986)." Care & Protection
    of Zita, 
    455 Mass. 272
    , 277-278 (2009). Where interlocutory
    rulings in the trial court are challenged and S.J.C. Rule 2:21,
    as amended, 
    434 Mass. 1301
     (2001), applies, that rule similarly
    requires a showing that "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).
    2 This is the third time that Ardaneh has sought
    extraordinary relief in this court pursuant to G. L. c. 211,
    § 3, arising out of the same criminal proceedings against him in
    the Superior Court. This court affirmed the judgments denying
    the two prior petitions. See Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 
    487 Mass. 1030
    , 1031 (2021); Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 
    486 Mass. 1005
    , 1006
    (2020).
    3
    Regardless of whether the "[b]rief and [e]xculpatory
    [i]nformation" and "[a]ppendix of the [e]xhibits of the
    [e]xculpatory [m]aterial [e]vidence[]" that Ardaneh has filed in
    the full court were intended as a memorandum and appendix
    pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, or an appellate brief pursuant to
    Mass. R. A. P. 16, as appearing in 
    481 Mass. 1628
     (2019),
    Ardaneh failed to demonstrate that review of his claims cannot
    adequately be obtained in the trial court or on appeal from any
    conviction. To the extent he claims that the evidence before
    the grand jury did not establish probable cause, or that the
    grand jury proceedings otherwise were flawed, "the evidence
    before the grand jury may be reviewed in the ordinary course of
    appeal" following a conviction on any of the indictments.
    Bateman v. Commonwealth, 
    449 Mass. 1024
    , 1025 (2007). To the
    extent he seeks review of the denial of his motion to dismiss
    the indictments, see Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1006 n.4,
    "[t]he 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.
    Likewise, Ardaneh's claims that he has received ineffective
    assistance of counsel, or that other of his constitutional
    rights have been violated, may be raised on appeal or in a
    motion for postconviction relief under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as
    appearing in 
    435 Mass. 1501
     (2001). See Doyle v. Commonwealth,
    
    472 Mass. 1002
    , 1003 (2015).
    Where Ardaneh failed to demonstrate that his claims cannot
    adequately be reviewed on appeal from any conviction or by other
    means in the trial court, there was no error in the single
    justice's judgment denying the petitions. See Sabree v.
    Commonwealth, 
    432 Mass. 1003
    , 1003 (2000) ("relief under G. L.
    c. 211, §3, is properly denied where there are other routes by
    which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief"). See
    also Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. at 1030 (Ardaneh [No.
    2]), quoting Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1006 ("to the extent
    that Ardaneh seeks relief 'from what he perceive[s] to be
    general injustices done to or imposed on him' in the trial
    court, '[h]is claims [do] not present a situation warranting
    extraordinary superintendence relief directly from this
    court'").
    4
    As noted supra, this is the third time that Ardaneh has
    sought some form of extraordinary relief from this court arising
    from the same underlying criminal proceedings. See Ardaneh (No.
    2), 487 Mass. at 1030; Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1006. Each
    time, we have concluded that he is not entitled to extraordinary
    relief to correct errors that may be reviewed in the ordinary
    process of trial and appeal. Ardaneh is on notice that further
    attempts to obtain such relief in similar circumstances may
    result in the imposition of sanctions.
    Judgment affirmed.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    Hamid Reza Ardaneh, pro se.
    Ryan Rall, Assistant District Attorney, for the
    Commonwealth.