Court Opinion

ID: 9701790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:38:31.678145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:29.764163
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent.
The Majority is correct that the United States Supreme Court has held that a state may refuse to reinstate a criminal defendant’s direct appeal and that such refusal offends neither the Due Process nor Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. See Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 43 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975). However, Estelle v. Dorrough, supra, is predicated on the notion that there is no federal constitutional right to appellate review of state criminal convictions. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 610-11, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 285, 100 L.Ed. 897 (1956). In Pennsylvania, however, the right of appeal is guaranteed to all persons by Article 5, § 9 of our state Constitution.
I do not believe that appellant’s constitutional right to appeal should be forfeited permanently in view of the *102fact that he surrendered voluntarily. I believe that the Commonwealth’s interest in ensuring that a criminal defendant does not flee is adequately vindicated by § 5124 of the Crimes Code 1 and by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provide for revoking bond.2 I see no reason to add the penalty of denying the appellant his right to challenge an allegedly invalid conviction. I would, therefore, order the lower court to consider appellant’s post-verdict motions nunc pro tunc.

. A criminal defendant who absconds commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. The Crimes Code, Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5124.

. Rule 4016, Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix.