Flood v. Commonwealth
465 Mass. 1015
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Gordon Flood was convicted of sexual offenses in 1993 and sentenced to 15–20 years; the Commonwealth sought civil commitment under G. L. c. 123A as his sentence neared completion.
- Flood was temporarily committed Jan 6, 2011; qualified examiner reports were filed March 17, 2011; Commonwealth filed a petition for trial March 21, 2011.
- Flood moved to dismiss June 1, 2011, arguing the trial did not commence within 60 days under G. L. c. 123A, § 14(a); a later motion is alleged but not clearly reflected on the docket.
- After the trial court denied the motion, Flood sought interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3; the single justice denied relief and Flood appealed to the full court.
- The core dispute is whether Flood is entitled to interlocutory review of a denial to dismiss for failure to commence trial within 60 days (a claimed right not to be tried) versus available relief by appeal after final judgment (a speedy-trial claim).
Issues
| Issue | Flood's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3 is available for denial of motion to dismiss where trial did not commence within 60 days under § 14(a) | §14(a) breach is a complete bar to trial; Flood has a right not to be tried and thus needs immediate review | Flood’s claim is a speedy-trial claim (right to a timely trial), not a right not to be tried; any violation can be remedied on appeal after final judgment | Denied: interlocutory review not warranted; Flood has adequate remedy by appeal after an adverse judgment |
| Whether § 14(a)’s 60-day trial commencement requirement is mandatory with no exceptions | No exceptions—trial must commence within 60 days | §14(a) allows continuances for good cause or interests of justice, so the 60-day period is relaxable | The 60-day commencement requirement is subject to good-cause continuances; unlike the filing deadline in Gangi, it is not absolute |
| Whether this case is controlled by Gangi (allowing interlocutory review for untimely filing of petition for trial) | Flood analogizes to Gangi to obtain immediate relief | Gangi is distinguishable; Gangi concerned a mandatory filing deadline with no exceptions, while §14(a) contains a continuance exception | Distinguished: Gangi does not compel interlocutory relief here |
| Whether denial of interlocutory relief was discretionary error by the single justice | Flood contends liberty interest requires immediate review | Commonwealth contends ordinary interlocutory-review rules apply and speedy-trial remedies post-judgment suffice | No error: single justice properly denied § 3 review because post-judgment appeal is adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ventresco v. Commonwealth, 409 Mass. 82 (denial of motion to dismiss not generally appealable under G. L. c. 211, § 3)
- McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1003 (double jeopardy denial may warrant interlocutory review because right not to be tried)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008 (double jeopardy interlocutory-review precedent)
- Gangi v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 158 (interlocutory review allowed where statute’s filing deadline for petition for trial is mandatory and requires dismissal if missed)
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 447 Mass. 691 (no trial proceeds without timely filed petition for trial)
- Commonwealth v. DeBella, 442 Mass. 683 (distinguishing mandatory filing deadline from trial commencement rule subject to continuance)
- Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003 (distinction between double jeopardy and speedy-trial claims for § 3 relief)
- Marrero v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1013 (procedural context for interlocutory review limits)
- Healy v. Commissioner of Correction, 463 Mass. 1001 (speedy-trial violations in civil-commitment context are remediable on appeal from adverse judgment)
- Coffin v. Superintendent, Mass. Treatment Ctr., 458 Mass. 186 (single justice may reserve and report, but § 3 is not a blanket avenue for interlocutory relief)