Com. v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 07 February 1990 |
| Citation | 524 Pa. 53,569 A.2d 328 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Eric MAXWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Spero T. Lappas, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Richard A. Lewis, Dist. Atty., Yvonne A. Okonieski, Deputy Dist. Atty., Matthew R. Gover, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Leonard Sosnov, John W. Packel, Asst. Public Defenders, Benjamin Lerner, Public Defender, for amicus curiae Def. Assn. of Phila.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and STOUT, JJ.
It being brought to the attention of this Court that, on August 20, 1989, the Appellant escaped from the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, the appeal is dismissed. See, Commonwealth v. Passaro, 504 Pa. 611, 476 A.2d 346 (1984).
STOUT, Former Justice, did not participate in the decision of this case.
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 1990, the Application for Reconsideration or Reargument filed by Appellant is DENIED.
I must disagree with the Court's reliance on Commonwealth v. Passaro, 504 Pa. 611, 476 A.2d 346 (1984), as a basis for denying the instant petition for reargument and affirming the dismissal of petitioner's appeal. The rationale of Passaro was that a defendant who had abandoned his appeal by escaping from prison and occasioning the quashing of the appeal rendered himself unavailable to the Court's jurisdiction and forfeited his right to a "second" appeal. The ruling was justified upon the facts of Passaro, wherein the defendant's appeal was quashed by the Superior Court six months after the defendant had escaped and while he remained a fugitive. This Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the defendant's petition to reinstate the appeal, which was filed upon the defendant's recapture four months later. Id. at 613, 476 A.2d at 347. The defendant's lengthy absence sufficiently disrupted the appellate process so as to warrant refusal to reinstate the quashed appeal.
The facts of the instant case are easily distinguishable. In this matter, petitioner escaped from prison and was recaptured the following day. This Court was unaware of his brief absence until approximately one month after he was returned to prison. Essential to the rationale established in Passaro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.J., In Interest of
...order entered in Luckenbaugh which cites Passaro cannot be interpreted more expansively than the decision itself. In Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 524 Pa. 53, 569 A.2d 328 (1990), we entered a per curiam order dismissing the appeal of a criminal defendant who had escaped from a state correctiona......
-
Commonwealth v. Maxwell
...Maxwell , 355 Pa.Super. 575, 513 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1986), appeal granted , 513 Pa. 633, 520 A.2d 1384 (1987), appeal dismissed , 524 Pa. 53, 569 A.2d 328 (1989).In November 1984, a jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder, robbery, and simple assault.3 Thereafter, the trial court i......
-
Com. v. Little
...1.5(d)(2), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (Purdons Supp.1992).1 See Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 355 Pa.Super. 575, 513 A.2d 1382 (1986), Alloc. dism., 524 Pa. 53, 569 A.2d 328; Commonwealth v. Bryant, 282 Pa.Super. 600, 423 A.2d 407 (1980); Commonwealth v. Savage, 275 Pa.Super. 96, 418 A.2d 629 (1980).2 See Com......
-
Com. v. Brown
...v. Maxwell, 355 Pa.Super. 575, 513 A.2d 1382 (1986), allocatur granted, 513 Pa. 633, 520 A.2d 1384 (1987),appeal dismissed, 569 A.2d 328 (1990). While appellant was in New Jersey fighting extradition back to Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth filed petitions for extensions of Rule 1100. Because......