Schumacher v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 1005

Background

In 2013 David Schumacher was convicted of armed robbery and later the Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 123A petition seeking his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person based on prior Florida sex convictions.
A Superior Court judge, on the Commonwealth's motion, temporarily committed Schumacher to the Massachusetts Treatment Center under G. L. c. 123A, § 12(e), pending a probable-cause determination.
Schumacher moved in the Superior Court for reconsideration and relief from temporary commitment; the motion was denied.
Schumacher sought interlocutory relief from a single justice under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging the temporary commitment order (and requesting dismissal of the c. 123A petition). The single justice denied relief, concluding ordinary appellate review was adequate.
Schumacher appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court by way of superintendence (S.J.C. Rule 2:21), arguing the temporary commitment deprived him of a liberty interest not adequately remediable on ordinary appeal and raising substantive challenges to the authority to file, the definition of "sexual offense," and vagueness of the statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was warranted from the order of temporary commitment	Schumacher: temporary commitment deprives him of a liberty interest that cannot be remedied by ordinary appeal; immediate review needed	Commonwealth/Single justice: ordinary appellate process provides adequate remedy; interlocutory relief not justified	Denied — ordinary appellate process is adequate; single justice did not err in refusing § 3 relief
Whether Gangi and Coffin require interlocutory review here	Schumacher: those precedents permit interlocutory review of c. 123A interlocutory rulings when liberty is at stake	Commonwealth: those decisions do not create a blanket rule; they are limited to their facts	Held: reliance misplaced; those cases do not automatically authorize § 3 review for every interlocutory order
Whether every denial of a motion to dismiss (or other interlocutory order) in c. 123A cases is immediately reviewable	Schumacher: impliedly contends it should be, given liberty interests	Commonwealth: not every interlocutory order is immediately reviewable; Flood limits such review	Held: Not every interlocutory order is subject to immediate review; Flood controls
Whether Schumacher’s substantive objections (prosecutorial authority, conviction qualifying as sex offense, vagueness) required immediate relief	Schumacher: these defects deprive him of rights and demand immediate correction	Commonwealth: these claims can be raised on appeal after final judgment	Held: These claims can be raised on appeal; no extraordinary interlocutory relief granted

Key Cases Cited

Gangi v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 158 (2012) (permitted interlocutory review in particular c. 123A circumstances where immediate relief was warranted)
Coffin v. Superintendent, Mass. Treatment Ctr., 458 Mass. 186 (2010) (addressed interlocutory review of c. 123A dismissal motion under § 3)
Flood v. Commonwealth, 465 Mass. 1015 (2013) (refused § 3 relief for denial of motion to dismiss in c. 123A context; limited scope of Coffin/Gangi)
Esteves v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 1003 (2001) (single-justice discretionary grants are not binding on the full court)