Court Opinion

ID: 9713913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:26:16.185341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:21.797171
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion states that the test to be applied in determining whether the *1105right to appeal was waived is the general rule that the voluntary and unlawful absence of the defendant from the trial court’s jurisdiction waives his right to a timely appeal. The formation and statement of this rule predates the grant in the Indiana Constitution of the absolute right to one appeal in criminal cases. Art. 7, § 8. Under the new constitutional provision the appeal in criminal cases has become a necessary part of the machinery of criminal justice, a part, I dare say, as fundamental as the right to trial, and like the right to trial is to be safeguarded with the greatest diligence. This Court has said many times that constitutional rights, even the right to trial, may be waived, but the waiver must be made freely and understanding^, and unless they are so waived there is error in the proceeding. State v. Lindsey, State v. Carroll, (1952) 231 Ind. 126, 106 N.E.2d 230. This is the standard to be applied in determining whether a person convicted of a crime has waived the constitutional right to appeal, and not the one announced in the maj ority' opinion.
Under the record as I understand it, Skol-nick voluntarily and intentionally fled the jurisdiction of the Porter Superior Court. From his place in hiding, he attempted to file a motion to correct errors comporting in time and substance with the requirements of Ind. R.Tr. P. 59. While avoiding the jurisdiction of the Porter Superior Court, appellant sought extensions of time to file the record of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals. When the Court of Appeals issued its order that appellant should surrender in thirty days or suffer forfeiture of his right of appeal, appellant responded by surrendering himself to the Porter Superior Court. Thereafter Judge Pivarnik denied the motion to correct errors and the appeal was prosecuted in the normal fashion.
From the time of his conviction to the time of his surrender, appellant’s conduct was contemptuous and disrespectful to the entire judicial system. He mocked the courts. His conduct was scornful. I do not for a minute wish to be understood as condoning it. However, as a judge, guided by the waiver standard, I see this conduct as inconsistent with a free and understanding relinquishment of the right of appeal. It is, indeed, consistent with a continuous desire to have an appeal of his conviction. There is nothing in the record of which I am aware that would permit the inference that appellant knew during the sixty days for filing a motion to correct errors that his appellate rights would be forfeited because of his flight from the trial court’s jurisdiction. There is, therefore, ample support in the record for the Court of Appeals to have concluded that there had been no waiver of the right to appeal.
I, therefore, dissent to the dismissal of this appeal.