Lombardi v. Commonwealth - Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss

Massachusetts SJC New Opinions

Filed February 3rd, 2026

Detected February 11th, 2026

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed a single justice's denial of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The petitioner sought to dismiss criminal charges based on an alleged extraterritorial arrest, but the court found that such claims must be raised on direct appeal after trial, not through extraordinary relief.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the denial of Paul J. Lombardi, Jr.'s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Lombardi appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss charges of operating while under the influence, which was based on the arresting officer acting outside their territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, and G. L. c. 211, § 3, cannot be used to circumvent this rule, citing precedent that such claims can be raised on direct appeal if convicted.

This decision means that individuals facing criminal charges in Massachusetts who wish to challenge the dismissal of charges based on procedural grounds like an extraterritorial arrest must proceed through the standard trial and direct appeal process. They cannot use the extraordinary relief provisions of G. L. c. 211, § 3, unless specific exceptions, such as a substantial double jeopardy claim, apply. Legal professionals representing defendants in similar situations should advise clients that the ordinary appellate process is the proper avenue for these claims.

What to do next

Advise clients that challenges to dismissal denials must proceed via direct appeal after trial, not G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Ensure all procedural challenges are properly preserved for direct appeal.

Source document (simplified)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108 - 1750; (617) 557 - 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC - 13848 PAUL J. LOMBARDI, JR. vs. COMMONWEALTH. February 3, 2026. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. The petitioner, Paul J. Lombardi, Jr., appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. The petitioner has been charged in the District Court with operating while under the influence of liquor and other offenses. He moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the police officer who stopped his vehicle and arrested him was acting outside the officer's territorial jurisdiction. A District Court judge denied the motion to dismiss, and the petitioner sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from that ruling. The single justice denied relief without addressing the merits. The petitioner has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires the petitioner to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means. " The petitioner has not met his burden. Except where a defendant raises a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit, which is not the case here, "[t]he denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, and . . . G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent that rule." Wallace v. Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1012, 1012, 1013 n.5 (2023), quoting Soucy v. Commonwealth, 470

2 Mass. 1025, 1025 (2015). If the petitioner is convicted of any offense, he will have the opportunity to raise his claim on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341, 347 (1999) (reversing conviction of operating while under influence due to extraterritorial arrest). Because the petitioner has this remedy in the ordinary appellate process, he is not entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Peter E. Padula for the petitioner.