Black v. Com.

February 25, 2011

Siva Black v. Commonwealth
2011 Mass. LEXIS 32

Docket No. 10840

Supreme Judicial Court

Practice, Criminal, Competency to Stand Trial.

Siva Black, who appeared pro se, appealed from a judgment of a single justice that denied his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Black was charged with armed assault with intent to murder and various other offenses. The judgment, which included a finding that Black was incompetent to stand trial and that he should be committed to Bridgewater State Hospital for evaluation, was affirmed.

Issue 1: Was Black competent to stand trial?

The Supreme Judicial Court determined that disturbing a single justice’s denial of relief would be extraordinary unless there were an abuse of the judge’s discretion or other error of law. A petitioner seeking relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3 “must demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation of [his] substantive rights and error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review process.” McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), quoting Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990). Black was unable to demonstrate that violation. He claimed that he was erroneously found incompetent because of his religious beliefs; regardless, he presented no evidence of this to the single justice. It is the petitioner’s burden to establish a record that supports his allegations. See Rasheed v. Appeals Court, 434 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2001). Additionally, the SJC found no reason to believe that religious bias was present. The single justice did not abuse his discretion, nor did he commit an error of law.

Judgment affirmed.

–Prepared by JWK.