Facts: The petitioner, Sopheara Chen, was convicted as
a youthful offender on three indictments charging possession of a loaded
firearm without a license after a jury-waived trial. The petitioner was also
convicted, in a separate jury-waived trial on “subsequent offense” indictments,
of three indictments charging unlawful possession of a firearm, second
offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The Appeals
Court affirmed the convictions from the first trial, but reversed the
subsequent offender
convictions from the second trial, because the petitioner
had not executed a separate written jury waiver prior to that jury-waived
trial.
Prior to retrial, the
petitioner moved to dismiss the subsequent offense indictments on the ground
that double jeopardy principles barred retrial. The petitioner alleged that the
evidence presented at the original trial on those charges was insufficient
to support his convictions as a subsequent offender, and that the Appeals
Court erred in concluding otherwise. A Juvenile Court judge denied the
motion. The petitioner then filed a petition in the county court seeking relief
from that order and dismissal of the subsequent offense indictments on double
jeopardy grounds. A single justice of this court denied the petition.
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s circumstance is
sufficiently extraordinary to fall into this court’s jurisdiction.
No. The Supreme Judicial
Court is not a substitute for the ordinary appellate process nor is it “an
additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its
course.” Therefore, because the petitioner has received review of his double
jeopardy claim (sufficiency of the evidence) prior to retrial, he has not
sustained his burden. Judgment affirmed. (CH)
