Vinnie v. Commonwealth, 58 N.E.3d 290

Raymond P. Vinnie was convicted of first‑degree murder in 1993 and denied a new trial on several grounds after an evidentiary hearing.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of his first motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 428 Mass. 161 (1998).
Over the years Vinnie filed numerous postconviction motions; in 2015 he filed a "petition in the nature of mandamus" under G. L. c. 249, § 5, in county court seeking relief related to a jury‑instruction claim.
A single justice denied the petition, finding mandamus inappropriate because another adequate remedy existed, and noting that if treated as a subsequent motion for new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E the claim was not "new and substantial."
Vinnie appealed; the Commonwealth moved to dismiss, arguing denials by a single justice acting as gatekeeper under § 33E are final and unreviewable.
The Court affirmed: whether viewed as a § 33E gatekeeper decision (unreviewable) or as mandamus (extraordinary relief unwarranted), Vinnie was not entitled to relief and there was no fraud on the court or basis for a new trial.

Issue	Vinnie’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Whether the single justice’s denial of the petition is appealable	Vinnie: He filed a mandamus petition so the denial is reviewable	Commonwealth: If petition is a § 33E gatekeeper motion, the single justice’s denial is final and unreviewable	Denial is not reviewable if treated as § 33E; appeal dismissed on that basis
Whether mandamus relief was available	Vinnie: Mandamus should compel allowance of a new trial based on jury‑instruction error	Commonwealth: Mandamus is extraordinary and inappropriate; other remedies existed and issue was previously litigated	Mandamus denied—other adequate remedies existed and issue already adjudicated
Whether the jury‑instruction claim is "new and substantial" under § 33E	Vinnie: The instruction issue warrants reconsideration / relief	Commonwealth: Claim is not new or substantial; was litigated and rejected earlier	The claim is not "new and substantial;" no basis for § 33E relief
Whether there was a fraud on the court warranting relief	Vinnie: Trial judge committed "fraud" on the court justifying relief	Commonwealth: No fraud; judge made discretionary credibility findings after hearing	Court found no fraud; judge’s adverse credibility findings were permissible

Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 428 Mass. 161 (1998) (affirming conviction and denial of first motion for new trial)
Commonwealth v. Scott, 437 Mass. 1008 (2002) (single justice gatekeeper decisions under § 33E are final and unreviewable)
Commonwealth v. Ambers, 397 Mass. 705 (1986) (discussing finality of single justice § 33E rulings)
Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010 (2006) (mandamus is extraordinary relief granted only when no other remedy exists)
Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019 (1999) (mandamus relief is discretionary and narrowly applied)
Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Dep't, 458 Mass. 596 (2010) (mandamus inappropriate for discretionary acts)