Court Opinion

ID: 9635571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:54:43.845241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:50:24.594358
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately to express my strong disagreement with the majority’s characterization of a defendant who has become a fugitive as having forfeited his constitutional right to have his claim considered. The mere fact of escape should in no way act to divest a person of any of his constitutional rights, and I do not read Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), as holding otherwise.
While I would certainly agree that it is proper upon a motion by the Commonwealth to quash the appeal of a fugitive pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1972(6), I would hold that such an appeal may be reinstated in the court’s discretion if the fugitive-appellant, on petition to reinstate the appeal, can show a compelling reason for having his claim heard.
The Appellant having asserted no compelling reason for reinstating his appeal, I concur only in the result reached by the majority today.