Doyle v. Commonwealth
32 N.E.3d 1256
Mass.2015Background
- Doyle was convicted after a jury of nighttime breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony (G. L. c. 266, § 16), possession of burglarious tools (G. L. c. 266, § 49), and malicious destruction of property (G. L. c. 266, § 127); the Appeals Court affirmed the first two convictions and reversed the malicious-destruction conviction.
- A Superior Court judge granted a motion to dismiss Doyle’s habeas petition; Doyle did not appeal that ruling but filed a new petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3 in the county court seeking vacatur of his convictions and immediate release.
- Doyle’s § 3 petition alleged the Superior Court erred by dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, and raised double jeopardy, duplicative convictions/sentencing, and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The single justice denied the § 3 petition, concluding Doyle’s claims were either raised or could have been raised on direct appeal or by a Rule 30 postconviction motion, and thus were not cognizable in an extraordinary § 3 proceeding.
- The court held habeas corpus relief likewise was unavailable because Doyle’s claims did not present grounds distinct from issues at indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing and therefore could not substitute for ordinary appellate or postconviction processes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of G. L. c. 211, § 3 relief | Doyle argued § 3 could be used to vacate convictions and secure release based on his claims | Commonwealth argued § 3 is extraordinary and not a substitute for appeal or Rule 30 relief | Denied — § 3 relief unavailable where adequate alternative remedies (appeal, Rule 30) exist |
| Scope of habeas corpus | Doyle sought habeas relief for double jeopardy, sentencing, and ineffective assistance | Commonwealth maintained habeas unavailable for claims that arise from trial/conviction/sentencing | Denied — habeas not available for claims not distinct from trial/conviction/sentencing issues |
| Double jeopardy / duplicative convictions | Doyle claimed convictions violated double jeopardy due to same conduct used in probation revocation | Commonwealth argued convictions already litigated; constitutional protection against retrial not implicated post-conviction | Denied — no superintendence relief required after conviction; double jeopardy claim must be raised via proper appellate/postconviction means |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial & appellate) | Doyle alleged counsel was ineffective and appellate counsel omitted issues | Commonwealth argued such claims are for Rule 30 postconviction motions, not § 3 or habeas | Denied here — ineffective-assistance claims must be pursued under Rule 30 in trial court (postconviction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Englehart v. Commissioner of Correction, 453 Mass. 1007 (2009) (postconviction relief procedures and limits on extraordinary remedies)
- Hicks v. Commissioner of Correction, 425 Mass. 1014 (1997) (availability of alternative remedies bars § 3 relief)
- Glawson v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 445 Mass. 1019 (2005) (habeas corpus limited to grounds distinct from trial-stage issues)
- Bates v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1019 (2001) (ineffective assistance claims not cognizable in habeas when they could be raised on appeal/postconviction)
- Stewart, petitioner, 411 Mass. 566 (1992) (limitations on habeas review for sentencing-structure issues)
- McCastle, petitioner, 401 Mass. 1005 (1987) (postconviction procedural limitations)
- Commonwealth v. Deeran, 397 Mass. 136 (1986) (postconviction double jeopardy claim improper in habeas)
- Norris v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1007 (2006) (§ 3 superintendence exercised sparingly; not a substitute for appellate process)
- Aldrich, petitioner, 468 Mass. 1013 (2014) (same; § 3 not a substitute for ordinary appeal)
- Ventresco v. Commonwealth, 409 Mass. 82 (1991) (double jeopardy protection against retrial considered pretrial)
- Clarke v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1012 (2002) (postconviction context for double jeopardy protection)
- Krochta v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 711 (1999) (contrast where § 3 review warranted pretrial)
- Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001 (2005) (principles limiting § 3 superintendence)
- Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201 (1981) (procedures for appellate counsel to preserve issues; remedies for alleged appellate counsel ineffectiveness)