White v. Commonwealth, 95 N.E.3d 236

In 1972 Raymond White was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and one count of armed robbery; his direct appeal was never properly perfected despite intermittent attempts over decades.
Various efforts: counsel obtained leave for late filing in 1974, but the appeal was not entered; a 1992/1994 county/single‑justice effort to transmit the record was denied.
In 2014 White filed pro se motions seeking reinstatement of his direct appeal; after counsel was appointed a single justice (in 2016) allowed reinstatement and ordered the trial record assembled.
The Commonwealth appealed the single justice’s reinstatement and related orders to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC agreed White was entitled to a remedy if counsel’s ineffectiveness caused loss of appeal, but reversed the reinstatement and held White should first pursue a Rule 30(b) motion for a new trial in Superior Court with specified protections.

Issue	Commonwealth’s Argument	White’s Argument	Held
Whether reinstatement of direct appeal by single justice was appropriate	Reinstatement was improper; White has an adequate alternative remedy	Reinstatement necessary to obtain plenary §33E review after decades	Reversed reinstatement; trial motion for new trial is the appropriate first step
Whether a Rule 30(b) motion is a constitutionally adequate substitute for lost direct appeal	Rule 30(b) is adequate and preferable here	Reinstatement provides direct §33E plenary review White seeks	Rule 30(b) is an adequate substitute provided additional protections are imposed
What procedural protections are required if White proceeds by Rule 30(b)	Protections should ensure functional equivalence to a lost direct appeal	White argued for reinstatement to avoid procedural hurdles	Court requires: (1) judge must consider all claims on merits, (2) if denied, White has unfettered right to appeal to SJC without single‑justice gatekeeping, (3) appeal reaches SJC with plenary §33E review standard
Effect of earlier (1994) single‑justice denial of record transmittal	Earlier denial weighs against later reinstatement; reinstatement conflicts with prior order	Reinstatement now justified given later proceedings	Court views 1994 order as, at minimum, denying reinstatement; supports requiring Rule 30(b) first

Commonwealth v. Hall, 369 Mass. 715 (1976) (affirming co‑defendant’s convictions)
Commonwealth v. Cowie, 404 Mass. 119 (1989) (Rule 30(b) is a constitutionally adequate substitute for a lost direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Frank, 425 Mass. 182 (1997) (appointed counsel required for adequate postconviction process; reinstatement appropriate in narrow circumstances)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel can deprive defendant of appeal right)
Commonwealth v. Beauchamp, 424 Mass. 682 (1997) (late appeals in murder cases may be allowed after long delays)
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (1997) (standards governing appellate review after postconviction proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Goewey, 452 Mass. 399 (2008) (discussing §33E gatekeeping and appeals after postconviction rulings)
Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 438 (2007) (defendant deprived of appeal by counsel need not show a colorable appellate issue to recover lost appellate rights)