Case Title: Smolka v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK SMOLKA, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 500, 2014 
 
Defendant-Below, Appellant, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below – Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
  
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1308022148 
Plaintiff-Below, Appellee. 
§  
 
 
 
Submitted: November 6, 2015   
Decided:  
November 9, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 9th day of November, 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On September 9, 2014, Mark Smolka appealed his conviction for 
possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.  He claimed on appeal that the trial 
court erred when it found that he waived his right to suppress evidence found 
during a search because he failed to attend the suppression hearing.  Smolka also 
claimed that the Superior Court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on a “lesser of 
evils” defense.   
 
(2) 
On June 23, 2015, we held that a defendant’s voluntary failure to 
appear at a suppression hearing waived his right to be present at the hearing, but 
2 
 
did not waive the defendant’s constitutional right to challenge evidence as 
unlawfully obtained. We remanded the case to Superior Court to conduct a 
suppression hearing, and did not reach the second issue raised on appeal.  We also 
retained jurisdiction over the appeal. 
 
(3) 
Despite being notified of the date by counsel, Smolka once again 
failed to attend at the evidentiary hearing.  The court noted that Smolka was at the 
time of the evidentiary hearing a fugitive from justice, having failed to appear as 
required by the conditions of his probation.  The Superior Court conducted an 
evidentiary hearing in his absence, and in an August 19, 2015 order, the court 
denied Smolka’s motion to suppress.   
 
(4) 
Upon return of the case to this Court, we issued a rule to show cause 
to Smolka’s counsel why the appeal should not be dismissed because Smolka is a 
fugitive and has forfeited his right to pursue this appeal.  On November 6, 2015, 
Smolka’s counsel confirmed that there is a warrant for a violation of probation on 
the underlying offense in this appeal because Smolka is an absconder from 
probation. Counsel also confirmed that Smolka has voluntarily left the jurisdiction. 
 
(5) 
A fugitive from justice has no right to pursue an appeal to this Court.  
See Redden v. State, 418 A.2d 996, 997 (Del. 1980), citing Crawford v. State, 94 
A.2d 603 (Del. 1953) (a fugitive has no right to appellate procedures while he 
3 
 
remains a fugitive).  Smolka has forfeited his right to continue with this appeal, 
and the appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice