Commonwealth v. Barron
Decision Date | 01 December 1975 |
Citation | 237 Pa.Super. 369,352 A.2d 84 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Herman BARRON, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
John J. Poserina, Jr., Philadelphia, (Court appointed) for appellant.
Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
The appellant, Herman Barron, pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault and possessing an instrument of crime based upon charges related to the stabbing of his girlfriend Barbara Lyons. Following his guilty plea on April 10, 1974 appellant was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination with a view toward mental health commitment. The examining physicians recommended that appellant be placed in a psychiatric ward, rather than a penal institution.
Appellant was sentenced on June 4, 1974, to 5--10 years imprisonment. In lieu of serving this sentence, however, appellant was ordered to be committed to the Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry. Appellant filed this appeal on July 10, 1974, but before the appeal could be heard, appellant escaped from the hospital. On October 23, 1974, a bench warrant was issued for appellant's arrest. The bench warrant is still outstanding.
On July 29, 1975, appellant's counsel, without consulting his client, who is still at large, filed a brief challenging his commitment to Byberry. Counsel for the Commonwealth answered the brief, and, in addition, requested that the appeal be quashed. Because appellant is a fugitive, we will not consider the merits of his appeal. Rather, we will grant the Commonwealth's motion to quash.
In Commonwealth v. Galloway, 460 Pa. 309, 311, 333 A.2d 741, 743 (1975), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:
(emphasis added)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), inapplicable to the facts of its decision in Commonwealth v. Galloway, supra, because Galloway was apprehended before the appeal was heard. However, we find Molinaro to be on point in the instant case. As in Molinaro, the appellant herein is now a fugitive from justice and has been for approximately one year. Under such circumstances, and in view of the fact that no statutory authority exists to compel this court to hear an appeal of a person outside our jurisdiction, we will not adjudicate appellant's case.
We agree with the rationale of the Molinaro Court:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial