Brown v. Commonwealth, 677 N.E.2d 1130 (Mass. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Brown v. Commonwealth, 677 N.E.2d 1130 (Mass. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. James (mass, 2017-08-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. James
Mass. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. Gilbert. 447 Mass. 161 , 165 n.7 (2006); Commonwealth v. Perry, 424 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1997); Commonwealth v. Lattimore. 400 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1987). 2 Plenary review under the statute has been described as a “uniquely thorough review.” Dickerson v. Attorney Gen., 396 Mass. 740, 744 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lanoue v. Commonwealth
Mass. · 1998 · confidence medium
L. c. 278, § 33E, “is not subject to § 33E’s gatekeeper restriction governing further appeals.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 424 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Cassino
Mass. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Doucette, 391 Mass. 443, 455 (1984), citing Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 501, 508 (1978) (premeditation), and Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 Mass. 639, 648-649 (1982), S.C., 424 Mass. 1019 (1997) (extreme atrocity or cruelty).
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Francis
Mass. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 Mass. 639, 643 (1982), S.C., 424 Mass. 1019 (1997).
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Gilbert
Mass. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Perry, 424 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1997); Commonwealth v. Lattimore, 400 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1987).
Enfrid Brown, Jr.
v.
Commonwealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Apr 8, 1997.
677 N.E.2d 1130
Enfrid Brown, Jr., pro se.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The petitioner’s conviction of murder in the first degree was affirmed by this court. Commonwealth v. Brown, 378 Mass. 165, 166 (1979) (no relief warranted under G. L. c. 278, § 33E). As a result, his appeal from any motion he filed in the Superior Court following § 33E review is prohibited “without the leave of a single justice of this court.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 410 Mass. 680, 683 (1991). The petitioner, who did not obtain leave of the single justice, now contends that, because he acted pro se, his “document” should have been liberally construed, apparently as both a request for leave to appeal and as an appeal. There is a meaningful distinction between our recognition that a handwritten pro se filing is to be liberally construed, Real v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole, 390 Mass. 399, 400 n.2 (1983), vacated sub nom. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, S.C., 396 Mass. 1001 (1985), and our subsequent statement that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of procedure as litigants with counsel” (emphasis added). Commonwealth v. Barnes, 399 Mass. 385, 392 (1987), quoting International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). The single justice did not commit an abuse of discretion or a clear error of law. Miranda v. Commonwealth, 392 Mass. 420, 421-422 (1984).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.