464 Mass. 1020
This matter was before the Supreme Judicial Court on an
appeal of a judgment denying the defendant’s filing of a petition for relief
under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Although the
petitioner was represented by counsel in the Appeals court, he filed the motion
pro se. In response, the single justice of the court
stated it would only consider filings submitted by his counsel of record. While the court has discretion to permit a
party to proceed in a hybrid manner (representation in part by counsel and in
part by oneself), it is not obligated to do so.
Thus, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the single justice did not
err or abuse his discretion by denying such relief since there is no
constitutional right to hybrid representation.
Written 7/16/2013
