Court Opinion

ID: 9752075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:33:13.441685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:06.389333
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
Once again, I write to express my view that although it may be proper for an appellate court to dismiss or quash an appeal when the appellant is a fugitive, Pa.R.A.P. 1972(6)1 *416it is improper to absolutely bar an appellant whose appeal has been so disposed of from petitioning the court and attempting to show good cause for reinstatement of the appeal at a later time. See Commonwealth v. Passaro, 504 Pa. 611, 617, 476 A.2d 346, 350 (1984) (Zappala, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Luckenbaugh, 520 Pa. 75, 550 A.2d 1317 (1986) (Zappala, J., dissenting).
That said, I find it thoroughly incongruous that the Court here has opted not to dismiss or quash the appeal, but to limit the issues and decide them on the merits. As the appellant is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, I would simply quash the appeal.
CAPPY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The fact that Rule 1972(6) permits the court not only to quash an appeal because the appellant is a fugitive, but also "to continue *416generally”, indicates to me a measure of discretion that belies the absolutist view espoused by the majority.