Opinion ID: 1973361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: defendant scott's appeal

Text: Defendant Scott contends that the court's order was erroneous to the extent that the court refused to enter an acquittal on all charges. Scott apparently suggests that the testimony of the Commonwealth's own psychiatrists requires a finding that he was legally insane. For the reasons that follow, we must quash Scott's appeal. In his notice of appeal, Scott states only that the appeal is from the order entered in this matter on the first day of September, 1989. Scott was aggrieved by that order only to the extent that it denied his petition for habeas corpus relief. It is settled, however, that the defendant cannot appeal from the denial of a pre-trial application for habeas corpus relief. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Myers, 457 Pa. 317, 322 A.2d 131 (1974); Commonwealth ex rel. Gordy v. Lyons, 434 Pa. 165, 252 A.2d 197 (1969). We recognize that Scott's argument, both in the court below and on appeal, focuses on the propriety of the court's decision under the Mental Health Procedures Act. However, even if the appeal is construed as from an order entered under the Act, it still is interlocutory. Although the Act is silent on the question of appealability, [t]he general rule in criminal cases is that a defendant may appeal only from a final judgment of sentence, and an appeal from any prior order or judgment will be quashed. Commonwealth v. Kurilla, 391 Pa.Super. 241, 243, 570 A.2d 1073, 1073 (1990); see also Commonwealth v. Reagan, 330 Pa.Super. 417, 418, 479 A.2d 621, 622 (1984). The purpose of the rule is to prevent[] undue delay and avoid[] the disruption of criminal cases by piecemeal appellate review. Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 610, 373 A.2d 90, 93 (1977) (plurality opinion); see also Commonwealth v. Hunter, 294 Pa.Super. 52, 55, 439 A.2d 745, 747 (1982), allocatur denied (June 11, 1982). The rule, however, is neither absolute nor inflexible. Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra ; see also Commonwealth v. Kurilla, supra . Thus, an appeal before final judgment may be permitted in those exceptional circumstances when the need for immediate review outweighs the purposes of the final judgment rule. Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra, 472 Pa. at 610, 373 A.2d at 93-94; see also Commonwealth v. Hunter, supra, 294 Pa.Super. at 56, 439 A.2d at 747. Exceptional circumstances exist, . . . (1) where an appeal is necessary to prevent a great injustice to the defendant, or (2) where an issue of basic human rights is involved, or (3) where an issue of great public importance is involved. Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra, 472 Pa. at 611, 373 A.2d at 94 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Reagan, supra, 330 Pa.Super. at 418-19, 479 A.2d at 622; Commonwealth v. Hunter, supra . Here, we find nothing in the record to suggest that exceptional circumstances exist that would allow an interlocutory appeal in this case. The Mental Health Procedures Act specifically provides that even if the court refuses to enter a pre-trial acquittal based on a lack of criminal responsibility, the defendant still may raise the defense at such time as he may be tried. See 50 Pa.Stat.Ann. § 7404(a). Thus, the precise issue that Scott seeks to have reviewed at this time  i.e., whether he was legally insane at the time he committed these offenses and thus should be acquitted on all charges  can be presented to the fact-finder at his upcoming trial. If the jury rejects Scott's insanity defense, he still will be free to challenge that finding on a direct appeal. Cf. Commonwealth v. Tempest, supra . On the other hand, if the fact-finder accepts Scott's argument and acquits him of all charges, it would obviate the necessity for any appeal relating to criminal responsibility. On this record, we see no exceptional circumstances, such as a potential for a great injustice, an issue of basic human rights, or an issue of great importance that would warrant our allowing this case to proceed in a piecemeal fashion. See Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra ; Commonwealth v. Reagan, supra ; Commonwealth v. Hunter, supra . Accordingly, we must quash Scott's appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we quash the appeal of defendant Scott, and we affirm the order below. Defendant Scott's appeal quashed. Order below affirmed.