Calzado v. Commonwealth

The single justice did not err in denying, without a hearing, Petitioner’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 on the ground that he had an adequate remedy in the normal appellate process.Petitioner, who was located serving a sentence in the Dominican Republic, was extradited to the United States pursuant to an extradition treaty to be tried on a murder indictment. After his arraignment, Petitioner was indicted on a further charge of witness tampering. Petitioner moved to dismiss the witness tampering indictment on the ground that the rule of specialty prohibited his being tried for any offense other than the murder indictment for which he was extradited. A superior court judge denied the motion, concluding that Petitioner lacked standing to object to an illegal or defective extradition. Petitioner then filed this Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that review of the trial court’s decision could not adequately be obtained on appeal. View "Calzado v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law