Commonwealth v. Robinson, 75 N.E.3d 1112

Paul Robinson and a codefendant were convicted in 1969 of two counts of first‑degree murder and two counts of assault with intent to rob; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (Commonwealth v. McGrath).
Robinson filed multiple (seven) postconviction motions for a new trial; all were denied, including the seventh.
Robinson sought leave to appeal the single justice’s denial under the gatekeeper provision of G. L. c. 278, § 33E; the single justice concluded the motion did not present a "new and substantial question."
Robinson appealed the single justice’s denial to the full Supreme Judicial Court, arguing (among other points) arbitrary application of the gatekeeper process and unequal treatment compared to other defendants.
The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the appeal on the long‑standing rule that a single justice’s gatekeeper decision under § 33E is final and unreviewable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the single justice’s refusal to allow a § 33E appeal is reviewable by the full court	Robinson: gatekeeper decisions should be reviewable; his appeal should proceed	Commonwealth: longstanding rule bars appeal; single justice rulings final	Held: Appeal dismissed; § 33E gatekeeper decisions are final and unreviewable
Whether Robinson’s claim of arbitrary/inconsistent gatekeeper decisions violated equal protection	Robinson: his petition was denied while others’ were allowed, showing arbitrariness	Commonwealth: no showing of discrimination; Robinson offered no basis for equal protection claim	Held: Rejected; claim mirrors rejected equal protection precedent (Napolitano)
Whether Robinson’s seventh motion raised a ‘‘new and substantial’’ issue	Robinson: asserted issues warranting review	Commonwealth: no new substantial issues presented; matters could have been raised earlier	Held: Court found no reason to think the seventh motion raised new substantial issues
Whether procedural error by the single justice justified review	Robinson: suggested procedural error in gatekeeper handling	Commonwealth: no evidence of procedural error sufficient to permit review	Held: Rejected; no basis to infer procedural error that would permit review (citing Nassar, Companiono)

Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 314 (affirming convictions on direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 475 Mass. 1011 (rule that gatekeeper decisions are final and unreviewable)
Napolitano v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 240 (rejecting equal protection challenge to gatekeeper process)
Commonwealth v. Companiono, 472 Mass. 1004 (explaining futility of allowing appeals from single justice gatekeeper rulings)
Leaster v. Commonwealth, 385 Mass. 547 (same principle on finality of single justice rulings)
Commonwealth v. Nassar, 454 Mass. 1008 (noting procedural‑error claims to single justice denials must be shown to permit review)
Commonwealth v. Grassie, 476 Mass. 202 (distinguished: involved direct appeal issues, not a § 33E gatekeeper final decision)