Hardy v. Morris

Decision Date03 September 1981
Docket NumberNo. 17062,17062
PartiesEdward Dale HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lawrence MORRIS, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Douglas E. Wahlquist, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In August of 1979, appellant pled guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree. His plea followed plea negotiations, and no appeal was taken from the judgment entered on the plea. On January 18, 1980, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was induced to plead guilty without full knowledge of the facts, of the charges against him, and of possible defenses. The petition was dismissed and appellant took this timely appeal from the dismissal.

While the appeal was pending, the state made this motion to dismiss, stating that on May 23, 1981, appellant escaped from the Utah State Prison and presently remains at large. The state's motion, supported by an extraordinarily helpful brief, asks this Court to dismiss the appeal because appellant is a fugitive from justice.

In declining to adjudicate the merits of an appeal after the criminal defendant failed to surrender himself after he was freed on bail, the United States Supreme Court stated:

No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims.

Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

By escaping, appellant has placed himself outside the control of the judicial system; a ruling adverse to him could not be enforced. Since he is now a fugitive from justice, appellant cannot call upon this Court to decide his appeal. In refusing to entertain the appeal of an escaped felon, the Georgia Appellate Court stated:

The dismissal of such an appeal is justified on the theory that the escaped prisoner should not be allowed to reap the benefit of a decision in his favor when the state could not enforce a decision in its favor.

Golden v. State, 145 Ga.App. 36, 243 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1978). Accord, United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435 (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State of Md. Deposit Ins. Fund Corp. v. Billman
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 1990
    ...v. State, 184 Tenn. 694, 699, 202 S.W.2d 647, 649 (1947); Ex parte Reid, 581 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Hardy v. Morris, 636 P.2d 473, 474 (Utah 1981); State v. Bono, 103 Wis.2d 654, 655, 309 N.W.2d 400, 400 There have been dismissals of direct criminal appeals by persons who had ......
  • D'Aston v. D'Aston
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 1990
    ...has dismissed the appeal of a prisoner after he escaped custody. State v. Tuttle, 713 P.2d 703, 704 (Utah 1985); see also Hardy v. Morris, 636 P.2d 473, 474 (Utah 1981) (court dismissed an escapee's appeal from a dismissal of a writ of habeas corpus). In Tuttle, the Utah Supreme Court refin......
  • State v. Kearns, 15306
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1987
    ...440 N.E.2d 457 (Ind.1982); Weser v. State, 224 Kan. 272, 579 P.2d 1214 (1978); Wheeler v. State, 249 So.2d 652 (Miss.1971); Hardy v. Morris, 636 P.2d 473 (Utah 1981).2 In Sinclair, we concluded that attempted escape does not work a forfeiture of the right to pursue a Rule 27.26 motion. In o......
  • State v. Lara
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • November 4, 2005
    ...escape constituted a voluntary waiver of the right to appeal. This ruling was consistent with previous holdings, such as Hardy v. Morris, 636 P.2d 473 (Utah 1981), that were overruled by this court's decision in ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT