Case Name: In the Interest of J.J. Appeal of J. J.
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1995-12-05
Citations: 447 Pa. Super. 259
Docket Number: No. 1382
Parties: In the Interest of J.J. Appeal of J. J.
Judges: Before OLSZEWSKI, TAMILIA and BROSKY, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 447
Pages: 259–274

Head Matter:
668 A.2d 1176
In the Interest of J.J. Appeal of J. J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Jan. 11, 1993.
Filed Dec. 5, 1995.
John W. Packel, Assistant Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Kathy L. Echternach, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
Before OLSZEWSKI, TAMILIA and BROSKY, JJ.

Opinion:
BROSKY, Judge.
This is an appeal from the dispositional order of the juvenile court which adjudicated appellant delinquent and committed him to a juvenile detention facility.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether this court should exercise its discretion to review the merits of his claims despite the fact that he escaped from custody and was a fugitive for a brief period during the pendency of this appeal; (2) whether the juvenile court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized from appellant's person following his arrest and; (3) whether the juvenile court erred in refusing to suppress cocaine which appellant had abandoned in the doorway of a residence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Before addressing appellant's claims, it is necessary to recount the pertinent facts giving rise to this appeal. On the morning of January 3, 1992, Officer John Gorman was dispatched to the intersection of Hollywood and Jefferson streets to investigate a report of a young black male selling narcotics. When he arrived, the officer saw appellant, J.J., standing on the northeast corner. Officer Gorman, who was in a marked police vehicle, did not activate his lights or direct any other action towards appellant. Upon seeing the officer, appellant quickly walked up the steps of a nearby residence, opened the storm door and dropped a clear plastic bag inside. Believing that the bag contained narcotics, Officer Gorman exited his vehicle, detained appellant and retrieved the bag. Examination of the bag revealed that it contained forty-nine capped vials inside of which was a white chunky substance. As a result of his discovery, Officer Gorman placed appellant under arrest and searched his person. During the body search, Officer Gorman found appellant to be in possession of $83.00 in currency. Appellant, who was a juvenile at the time, was thereafter charged with various offenses arising out of this incident.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine and money seized by the police. This motion was denied. Following a hearing on March 13, 1992, appellant was adjudicated delinquent based on his possession and possession with the intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance, i.e., cocaine. The juvenile court thereafter entered a dispositional order committing appellant to St. Gabriel's Hall. Appellant filed a timely appeal therefrom.
On July 19, 1992, appellant escaped from St. Gabriel's Hall and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Approximately one month later, appellant was apprehended while driving a stolen car. As a result of the charges arising from this latter incident, appellant was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Glen Mills School.
In September of 1992, the Commonwealth filed a motion to quash the appeal due to appellant's former fugitive status. This court granted the motion by per curiam order entered on January 20, 1993. Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court, which granted allocatur. The Court subsequently vacated our order and remanded this matter so that we may determine whether in the exercise of our inherent discretion the appeal should be quashed because of appellant's previous escape. In the Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. 274, 289-291, 656 A.2d 1855, 1363 (1995).
The Supreme Court has not elaborated on the manner in which this discretionary authority is to be exercised. However, we are not wholly bereft of instruction, as a few guiding principles may be gleaned from the Supreme Court's discussions on this subject. In applying the discretionary rule, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that the courts of inferior jurisdiction have the inherent discretion to determine whether any sanction should be imposed in view of the particular circumstances and the effect of the flight on the court's ability to dispose of the case. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Huff, 540 Pa. 535, 536-539, 658 A.2d 1340, 1341-1342 (1995) (it is not proper for an appellate court to dismiss an appeal where the trial court chooses to ignore disrespect manifested by the defendant's flight and disposes of the issues on their merits; because flight prior to sentencing had no significant effect on the appellate process, the Superior Court erred by holding that the defendant waived his appellate rights, including the right to seek collateral relief); In the Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. at 287-291, 656 A.2d at 1362-1363 (appellate court can exercise the same discretion as a trial court in deciding what will be the appropriate response to a defendant's fugitive status occurring during ari appeal pending before its own court; the appellate courts thus have the right to fashion an appropriate response, including the dismissal of the matters which the defendant seeks to have reviewed); Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 538 Pa. 78, 74, 645 A.2d 1294, 1294 (1994) (trial court was in a position to assess what penalty, if any, should be imposed where the defendant was a fugitive during post-trial proceedings; since the trial court chose to overlook the defendant's contemptuous flight and disposed of his post-trial motions, the defendant was entitled to proceed with his appeal in the Superior Court). Review of the exercise of this discretion is limited, as the appellate courts will only examine: (1) the connection between the defendant's flight and the court's ability to dispose of the defendant's case; and (2) whether the sanction imposed in response to the flight is reasonable under the circumstances. In the Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. at 287-291, 656 A.2d at 1362-1363; Commonwealth v. Kindler, 536 Pa. 228, 233, 639 A.2d 1, 3 (opinion announcing the judgment of the court, by Papadakos, J.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 327, 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994).
Examination of the above authorities persuades us that the Supreme Court did not advocate the adoption of a per se rule mandating forfeiture where a defendant's flight disrupts the appellate process. Nor did the Supreme Court limit the scope of the issues to be reviewed in dealing with a fugitive defendant. Instead, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the inherent power of the courts to decide whether any sanction should be imposed, subject only to the requirements that the defendant's fugitive status must affect the court's ability to dispose of the case and that any sanction must constitute a reasonable response to the flight. In the Interest of J.J. and Commonwealth v. Kindler, supra. To exercise discretion in accordance with these directives, the courts must necessarily conduct a case-by-case analysis of the pertinent facts and circumstances. While the factors to be considered have not been specifically articulated, the Supreme Court has indicated that the connection between the flight and the court's ability to dispose of the case is relevant. In the Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. at 289-291, 656 A.2d at 1363; Com monwealth v. Kindler, 536 Pa. at 233, 639 A.2d at 3. The Court has also provided that the court's response to the flight must be reasonable. In the Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. at 289-291, 656 A.2d at 1363; Commonwealth v. Kindler, 536 Pa. at 233, 639 A.2d at 3.
Consequently, the matters to be reviewed in determining whether a defendant should be sanctioned for his flight should bear directly on these two primary issues and may include, but are not limited to: (1) the stage of the proceedings when the flight occurred, ie., during the trial, post-trial or on appeal; (2) the manner in which the defendant escaped; (3) whether the defendant has been returned to custody; (4) the circumstances surrounding the defendant's return to custody, ie., was the return voluntary or was the defendant captured in the course of committing another crime; (5) the length of time that the defendant remained at large; (6) the age/maturity/condition of the defendant, ie., whether he is a juvenile or adult and whether he is capable of fully comprehending the significance of his conduct; (7) the reasons for the defendant's flight, ie., whether the escape resulted from a mere juvenile whim, homesickness, desire to prove Ms innocence or whether it was a deliberate intent to flout the authority of the court; and (8) the effect which the defendant's flight had upon the court's ability to engage in effective and meaningful review of the defendant's claims. Of course, these factors are intended as an aid to the courts and should not be construed as an attempt to limit the matters for consideration. Any other relevant factors pertaining to the defendant's flight and the severity of the sanction to be imposed should thus be examined.
Review of the above considerations persuades us that dismissal of the appeal, while arguably justified, should not be imposed in this case. The record indicates that appellant, who has a history of delinquency adjudications, was adjudicated delinquent in the instant case and committed to Saint Gabriel's Hall. Following entry of the dispositional order, appellant timely appealed to this court. A few months later, appellant absconded and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Appellant remained at large for approximately one month at which time he was apprehended while operating a stolen car.
Appellant's behavior evinces his rejection of the rehabilitative opportunities provided by the juvenile court and desire to continue his life of crime. Appellant's flight and perpetration of additional offenses further demonstrate his utter contempt for the judicial system and lack of respect for the laws of this Commonwealth. Nevertheless, appellant was returned to custody, albeit fortuitously rather than voluntarily, within a month after his escape. In fact, appellant was back in custody well before the Commonwealth had even filed its motion to quash this appeal. Aside from the Commonwealth's motion, nothing in the record indicates that appellant's escape has disrupted the appellate process. Nor has the relatively brief period of flight substantially compromised this court's ability to engage in effective and meaningful review of the questions presented by appellant. The impact on the appellate process, if any, was therefore minimal. We are also mindful of the fact that despite his criminal conduct, appellant was still a juvenile at the time of his escape. Due to his status as a juvenile, the fact that he has been returned to custody and because the escape had virtually no effect on our ability to address his claims, we will exercise our inherent discretion and decline to quash the appeal.
Having disposed of this threshold question, we will proceed to address the merits of appellant's remaining claims. Appellant's second and third issues challenge the lower court's refusal to suppress the physical evidence seized by the police. In reviewing a suppression court's ruling:
we must determine whether the record supports that court's factual findings. In so doing, we consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 536 Pa. 355, 366-367, 639 A.2d 763, 769 (1994) (citation omitted). We will evaluate appellant's arguments and the decision of the lower court in accordance with these principles.
Appellant contends that the cocaine retrieved from the doorway must be suppressed because it was seized without a warrant. Appellant also argues that the currency taken from his person must be suppressed because it was the fruit of an unlawful arrest. We disagree with appellant's assessment.
The record reveals that Officer Gorman was dispatched to the intersection of Hollywood and Jefferson to investigate a report of a black male who was selling narcotics. Suppression Hearing Transcript (S.H.T.) 3/10/92 at 4-5 and 10. Officer Gorman observed appellant standing on the street corner when he arrived a few minutes later. Id. at 6. Officer Gorman did not activate his lights or otherwise call attention to his presence. Id. at 13-14. Nor did he take any action signifying an interest in appellant. Id. at 6-7 and 13-14. Upon seeing the officer, appellant turned and walked quickly up to the residence located at 1503 Hollywood Street. Id. at 5-6 and 18-19. Appellant then opened the storm door of the house and dropped a clear plastic bag inside the doorway. Id. at 5, 7 and 13. Although he did not observe the contents of the bag, Officer Gorman believed that it contained narcotics based on his experience and participation in prior drug-related arrests in the area. Id. at 5-8. After watching appellant drop the bag, Officer Gorman detained appellant and retrieved the bag from the doorway. Id. at 5, 6-7 and 16. After the cocaine was discovered, appellant was arrested and searched. Id. at 5 and 16. During the search of appellant's person, Officer Gorman recovered the $83.00 in currency. Id. at 5 and 16.
Even were we to assume, arguendo, that Officer Gorman's initial detention of appellant was unlawful, suppression of the evidence is not an appropriate remedy. Appellant cannot legitimately contest the seizure of the cocaine recovered from 1503 Hollywood Street because he did not establish either that he owned the premises or that he otherwise held a legitimate and reasonable privacy interest therein. See Commonwealth v. Peterson, 535 Pa. 492, 497-501, 636 A.2d 615, 617-619 (1993) (it is the defendant's responsibility to establish that his suppression challenge is legitimate by demonstrating that he held a reasonable privacy interest in the premises which is constitutionally justifiable). Moreover, appellant lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the cocaine because he voluntarily abandoned it before Officer Gorman took any action against him. Commonwealth v. Tillman, 423 Pa.Super. 343, 346, 621 A.2d 148, 150 (1993). Since the cocaine was obtained independently of any police misconduct, it need not be suppressed. See id., 423 Pa.Super. at 347-348, 621 A.2d at 150-151 (drugs were obtained independently of any police misconduct where they were abandoned by the defendant before the police initiated any contact with him; suppression of the evidence was not required).
Once Officer Gorman retrieved the abandoned bag and discovered that it contained a controlled substance, he clearly had probable cause to arrest appellant. See Commonwealth v. Burnside, 425 Pa.Super. 425, 430, 625 A.2d 678, 681 (1993) (probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime). After effectuating a lawful arrest, Officer Gorman was then permitted to conduct a search of appellant's person without a warrant. Commonwealth v. Agnew, 411 Pa.Super. 63, 74, 600 A.2d 1265, 1271 (1991). The currency taken from appellant's person was therefore admissible since it was obtained during the search incident to a lawful arrest. Finding that the trial judge properly denied appellant's suppression motion, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
OLSZEWSKI, J., files a dissenting opinion.
. The substance was later tested and found to be cocaine. The vials contained a total of 4.9 grams of cocaine.
. 35P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
. 35P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
. 35 P.S. § 780-104(2)(i)4 (defining cocaine as a schedule II controlled substance).
. The offenses relating to appellant's theft and unauthorized use of the automobile are not properly before us for review at this time. Accordingly, this incident will not be further discussed.
. The record does not contain any information concerning the circumstances surrounding appellant's escape.
. The Commonwealth urges us to hold appellant accountable for all of the resources expended by the appellate courts in connection with his appeals. We are not persuaded by the Commonwealth's reasoning. This court initially quashed the appeal based on the authorities which were in effect at the time. Appellant could not have foreseen that the Supreme Court would grant his petition for allowance of appeal and overrule caselaw which was of relatively recent vintage. We accordingly believe that the prior appeals to this court and the Supreme Court should not be weighed against appellant in examining the effect of his escape on the appellate process.
. The dissent criticizes our decision to permit this appeal and charges that, in doing so, we have overwhelmingly focused on the lack of disruption to the appellate process. Dissenting Opinion, post at 269-270 and 271-272. Contrary to the dissent's assessment, our decision is based on a review of all of the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that appellant is a juvenile. We have therefore exercised our discretion to excuse his adolescent and immature behavior notwithstanding the fact that the escape constitutes an affront to the dignity of the court. However, we emphasize that our decision to disregard appellant's flight should not be interpreted as an expression of approval or condonation of such behavior. Appellant and others who contemplate similar conduct are thus forewarned that this court will not hesitate to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal in the appropriate case.
. The dissent would not reach the merits of these issues because they do not implicate the truth-determining process. Dissenting Opinion, post at 273-274. Although not labeled as such, the dissent's "truth-determining" standard appears to be derived from the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-§ 9546. The PCRA was designed to afford collateral relief to those individuals who are convided of a crime. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. It thus has no application in the context of claims raised on direct appeal. Moreover, application of such a standard would be particularly inappropriate here because post-conviction relief does not extend to juvenile matters. See, e.g., Matter of J.P., 393 Pa.Super. 1, 11, 573 A.2d 1057, 1062 (1990). Regardless of the basis for the dissent's derivation of the truth-determining standard, appellant's suppression claims do appear to implicate the truth-determining process since the remedy would be to grant him a new adjudication in the event these issues are deemed to be meritorious.