From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. v. Hunter

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 17, 2008
2008 Pa. Super. 129 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)

Summary

holding that a defendant who remains a fugitive from the time of sentencing until after the appeal deadline has passed forfeits the right to appellate review

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Weimer

Opinion

No. 2040 EDA 2007.

Submitted: May 19, 2008.

Filed: June 17, 2008.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, Nos. CP-51-CR-0206571-2006 and CP-51-CR-1208021-2005, Wogan, J.

Karl Baker, Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth.

BEFORE: ORIM MELVIN, COLVILLE and FITZGERALD, JJ.

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.


¶ 1 This case is a direct appeal from judgment of sentence. Appellant claims the court erred in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and in imposing an excessive sentence. We quash.

Facts

¶ 2 Appellant pled guilty to various sex offenses. He did not appear for sentencing. In March 2007, the court issued a bench warrant and set a new sentencing date. On the new sentencing date, Appellant again did not appear. The court indicated it was going to sentence Appellant in absentia.

¶ 3 Prior to imposition of sentence, Appellant's counsel asked the court to impose a sentence as negotiated by the parties or, if the court was not prepared to impose such a sentence, then to list Appellant for a trial date — that is, to withdraw Appellant's plea. Citing Appellant's absence, the court denied counsel's request. The court then imposed sentence.

¶ 4 Appellant's counsel thereafter filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea and/or to modify sentence. The court denied the motion in June 2007.

¶ 5 In July 2007, Appellant's counsel filed this appeal. Appellant was still a fugitive when the appeal was filed. The trial court issued its opinion in October 2007. At some point thereafter, on or about November 1, 2007, Appellant was apprehended.

Legal Principles

¶ 6 In Commonwealth v. Jones, 530 Pa. 536, 610 A.2d 439, 441 (1992), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court articulated the per se rule that a defendant irrevocably forfeits the right to appeal by being a fugitive at any time after post-trial proceedings commence. However, the Supreme Court modified that rule in Commonwealth v. Deemer, 550 Pa. 290, 705 A.2d 827 (1997). There, the court explained that, despite having lost the right to appeal, a fugitive who returns before the appeal deadline effectively regains the appellate right and may, therefore, file a timely appeal. See id. at 829. A fugitive who returns after the appellate deadline is not entitled to a direct appeal. Id.

Analysis

¶ 7 Appellant was a fugitive from the time of his initially scheduled sentencing until some point after his counsel filed this appeal and after the appeal deadline passed. Appellant is not entitled to pursue this appeal. Therefore, we quash.

¶ 8 Appeal quashed.


Summaries of

Com. v. Hunter

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 17, 2008
2008 Pa. Super. 129 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)

holding that a defendant who remains a fugitive from the time of sentencing until after the appeal deadline has passed forfeits the right to appellate review

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Weimer

holding that a defendant who willingly and purposely becomes a fugitive and does not return before the time for appeal expires forfeits his right to an appeal

Summary of this case from In re K.G.

concluding that, because the appellant remained a fugitive from the time of his scheduled sentencing until after his counsel had filed an appeal and the appeal deadline passed, he was not entitled to pursue an appeal

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Adams

concluding that because appellant remained a fugitive from the time of his scheduled sentencing until after his counsel had filed an appeal and the appeal deadline passed, he is not entitled to pursue an appeal

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Aly

quashing the appellant's appeal because he remained a fugitive from the time of his sentencing until after his counsel had filed an appeal and the appeal deadline passed

Summary of this case from Woodard v. Thomas

quashing where fugitive was absent from time of sentencing until being apprehended after appeal deadline passed

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Moore

quashing where appellant not entitled to pursue appeal because he remained a fugitive from time of scheduled sentencing until after counsel had filed appeal and by the time he was apprehended appeal deadline had passed

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Lundy
Case details for

Com. v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Clarence HUNTER, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 17, 2008

Citations

2008 Pa. Super. 129 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)
2008 Pa. Super. 129

Citing Cases

Woodard v. Thomas

ated that there is a reasonable probability that the defense would have prevailed if Attorney Checque had…

In re K.G.

Appellant's decision to abscond from his commitment after the hearing and to stay in hiding until the…