Com. v. Reagan

• Decision Date: 03 August 1984
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald E. REAGAN, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 621

479 A.2d 621 330 Pa.Super. 417 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Donald E. REAGAN, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted March 19, 1984.
Filed Aug. 3, 1984.

Page 622

[330 Pa.Super. 418] Charles B. Coleman, Asst. Public Defender, Reading, for appellant.

Charles M. Guthrie, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Reading, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, President Judge, and ROWLEY and BECK, JJ.

BECK, Judge:

The question is whether an appeal from an interlocutory order adjudicating appellant competent to stand trial for homicide under the provisions of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. § 7101 et seq. (hereinafter "Act") ¹ is appealable prior to trial. We hold that such an interlocutory order is not appealable.

Although neither party has raised the issue of the appealability of this order, we address the issue sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Hunter, 294 Pa.Super. 52, 54, 439 A.2d 745, 746 (1982).

Section 7403 of the Act provides that when a defendant previously found incompetent to stand trial has regained competence, "the [criminal] proceedings shall be resumed."

Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a judgment of sentence. However, an appeal before final judgment may be permitted in "exceptional circumstances", such as

"... (1) where an appeal is necessary to prevent a great injustice to the defendant, or (2) where an issue of basic human rights is involved, or (3) where an issue of great importance is involved." Id. at 56, [330 Pa.Super. 419] 439 A.2d at 747,quoting Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 610-611, 373 A.2d 90, 93-4 (1977).

For example, in Bolden the Pennsylvania Supreme Court permitted pre-trial appeal of the refusal to dismiss an indictment based on double jeopardy grounds. The Court concluded that because the double jeopardy clause was designed to protect an individual from having to stand trial, not merely to bar a second conviction, appellate review after judgment would not adequately protect an accused's rights.

In contrast, determinations of mental competence to proceed to trial have not been found to present "exceptional circumstances" requiring immediate appeal. Thus, in Commonwealth v. Novak, 384 Pa. 237, 120 A.2d 543 (1956), a defendant awaiting trial petitioned for commitment to a hospital on the ground of mental illness under the Mental Health Act of 1951, the predecesor act of the one under consideration in this appeal. Novak's appeal from the trial court's denial of his petition and...