![]() Pina appeals, and has now changed tack, arguing that he should be allowed to "intervene" in Depina's case. A single justice denied the petition, noting that Pina had no substantive right to obtain discovery in Depina's case and that, to the extent Pina sought to challenge his own conviction, the proper route to do that was to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court. Furthermore, Pina argued, he had, under the circumstances, "automatic standing" to petition the district attorney's office that had prosecuted Depina to produce all evidence related to the firearm. ![]() In the petition, Pina argued that he was a "party of interest" in Depina's case because the firearm at the root of the charges against Pina was seized from Depina. 231, § 118, because there had been a final disposition in the underlying case in the trial court, the filing was transferred to the county court and treated as a petition pursuant to G. On the basis that the Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to G. ![]() Pina thereafter sought to appeal the ruling to a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. Several years later, Pina filed, in Depina's case, a "Motion Requesting Court Order to Norfolk DA's Office to Produce and Provide Party of Interest with a Copy of all Police Evidence, Tests, and Chain of Custody Reports," which a judge in the trial court denied. In that case, Depina successfully moved to suppress the firearm on the basis that it had been illegally seized, and the Commonwealth thereafter nol prossed the charges against Depina. The firearm at the root of the charges was recovered during a motor vehicle search at which Pina was not present and that also led to charges in a separate case against a different individual, Danilo Depina. 265, § 15A (c) (1) and commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm, in violation of G. 265, § 18 (b) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, in violation of G. We affirm.Ī jury convicted Pina of several crimes, including armed assault with intent to murder, in violation of G. The petitioner, Ruben Pina, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. (2) SJC-12758 03 Appellee Commonwealth Brief. ![]() The Civil Case Information Statement remains due within 15 days after the superior court clerk sends the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal (California rules of Court, rule 8.100(g)(1).)cc: sup. Pursuant to Court of Appeal, Fifth District, Local Rules, rule 2, the provisions of California Rules of Court, rules 8.121, 8.124 and 8.216, requiring designation of the record, payment of estimated costs for preparation of the record, and submission of a proposed briefing schedule are suspended pending the Court's decision to select or not select this case for mediation. Your failure to provide the Court with this information may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or the dismissal of your appeal. ![]() The information you provide on this Questionnaire will be used for the sole purpose of screening this appeal for inclusion in the Court's Mediation Program and will not become part of the public record on appeal. App., Fifth Dist., Local Rules, rule 2.) The Questionnaire must be accompanied by a Proof of Service on opposing counsel AND a copy of the verdict, order or judgment appealed from, including tentative rulings. Mediation Screening Questionnaire The Court requires that within 10 calendar days, appellant(s) and respondent(s) complete and submit the Mediation Screening Questionnaire. Docket Description: Letter sent to: Notes: Dear Counsel:The Court has received a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed in this case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |