Facts: Petitioner
Ronald Gullick was convicted in 1979 of various offenses and has filed a number
of appeals and motions for new trial in the years since. His direct appeal of
his conviction was denied in 1982. Several of his motions for new trial argued
that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Procedural Posture: This appeal arose from
a denial of Gullick’s most recent petition under G.L. c. 211, §3, which
requested that the SJC “reinstate” his direct appeal on the grounds that his
appellate counsel failed to communicate with him during his appeals process. A
single justice of the SJC denied the defendant’s petition.
Issue: Whether the defendant’s G.L. c. 211, §3, petition
should have been accepted?
Petitions
under G.L. c. 211, § 3, are appropriate when the defendant has no other remedy
to correct errors and abuses by the inferior state court. However, ineffective
assistance of counsel is one basis for a motion for new trial, and Gullick in
fact argued this same point in several of his previous motions. As such, the
G.L. c. 211, §3, petition is not available to him.
Judgment: The single justice did not err in denying the
defendant’s petition (affirmed). (GC)
