Court Opinion

ID: 9471586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:36:02.681612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:28.616130
License: Public Domain

*1540JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot argue with the assertion that United States v. Holmes, 680 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 103 S.Ct. 1259, 75 L.Ed.2d 486 (1983), stands as the law of this Circuit and permits the dismissal of appeals brought by those who become fugitives after they are convicted and before they are sentenced. I do argue, however, with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case that Holmes controls here where appellant fled during trial and before conviction, rather than after trial. The majority finds little difference between the two cases, and thus extends Holmes to these facts. I perceive substantial differences between these cases and would not extend Holmes.
When a defendant flees after his conviction, some basis exists for regarding his flight as the abandonment of any objections he may have to alleged errors in his trial. The convicted defendant who becomes a fugitive had the opportunity to observe the trial and detect challengeable errors. His decision to flee rather than remain to press an appeal reasonably can be regarded as a waiver of his right to appeal. This was the approach taken by the court in Holmes. 680 F.2d at 1374. When a defendant flees during trial, no such basis exists for implying a waiver of rights. The defendant who is tried in absentia1 is unaware of any errors committed in his absence. He legitimately expects that his trial will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process. If gross constitutional errors occur at trial — errors of which the defendant has no knowledge — this Court cannot reasonably infer a waiver of the right to appeal those errors. Yet, under the rule adopted by the majority, the defendant convicted in absentia could not appeal his conviction even if his trial was infected by the most flagrant constitutional violations. Implication of an abandonment and waiver in this instance seriously undermines the constitutional protections applicable in criminal trials.
The majority argues that the same concerns that led to a dismissal of the appeal in Holmes are present in London —disruption of sentencing and appeal processes, and of a prolonged trial in London, and the flaunting by the defendant of disrespect for the orderly procedures of the court. These concerns, which led the Court in Holmes to imply a waiver of rights, lead the Court here to the same conclusion. Rather than suggesting to me the appropriateness of extending Holmes to this case, these concerns and the Court’s implication of waiver lead me to question the correctness of the Holmes decision itself.
The Court’s reasoning in Holmes started ' with the recognized principle that, when a criminal defendant becomes a fugitive after filing an appeal, the appellate court in its discretion may dismiss the appeal. 680 F.2d at 1373. Courts enunciating this principle have identified two purposes behind it. First, it discourages escape. See Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 537, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 1175, 43 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975) (per curiam). Second, “it promotes the efficient, dignified operation of [courts of appeal].” Id.; see also Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) (per curiam) (escape “disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims”). Binding precedent of this Circuit, which permits dismissal of appeals of escaped appellants, emphasizes that escape after appeal constitutes an abuse of the process of this court, see United States v. Shelton, 508 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 828, 96 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed.2d 44 (1975), and approves the policy of dismissing the appeals of those who flout the appellate process by escaping while the appeal is pending, see Joensen v. Wainwright, 615 F.2d 1077, 1079-80 (5th Cir.1980).
These cases emphasize that abuse of the appellate process is the justification for dismissal and thus suggest that pendency of an appeal is a critical element in the deci*1541sion to dismiss. Because a final judgment normally is required for an appeal in a criminal case and sentencing is a prerequisite to a final judgment, no appeal can be filed until the defendant has been sentenced. United States v. Mulherin, 710 F.2d 731, 743 (11th Cir.1983) (citing United States v. Wilson, 440 F.2d 1103, 1104 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 210, 30 L.Ed.2d 163 (1971)). Thus, the courts’ central concern about abuse of the appellate process cannot be implicated in any case in which the defendant flees before sentencing or, indeed, before filing a notice of appeal. This concern is implicated in neither Holmes nor London, and in neither case should the appeal have been dismissed. Far from extending Holmes to this ease, I would strictly limit its holding to the facts there presented.
Although I would permit London to press his appeal in this ease, I would affirm the judgment of the court below on all questions raised by the appeal. My feeling that London has a right to present those claims on appeal is the sole basis for this dissent.2

. London was tried in absentia. The majority does not indicate whether it would permit the dismissal of an appeal by one who escapes during or before trial and whose trial is postponed until the defendant’s capture. Under the reasoning of the majority, the right of appeal also could be denied in such a case.

. See United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (Circuit Judges Frank M. Johnson, Jr., and Joseph W. Hatchett and District Judge Charles R. Scott).