In Interest of Dixon

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In Interest of Dixon

422 A.2d 892, 282 Pa. Super. 189, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3421

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 21, 1980

Docket1766

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 422 A.2d 892 (In Interest of Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Interest of Dixon, 422 A.2d 892, 282 Pa. Super. 189, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3421 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

HESTER, Judge:

Following the submission of the within appeal, this court has been advised by the District Attorney of Berks County that the appellant is now a fugitive. This information has been verified by the Office of the Public Defender, counsel for appellant. Where an appellant is a fugitive while his appeal is pending, the appeal should be quashed. Pa.Rules of Appellate Procedure 1972; Commonwealth v. Borden, 256 Pa.Super. 125, 389 A.2d 633 (1978), wherein this court cited Commonwealth v. Galloway, 460 Pa. 309, 333 A.2d 741 (1975), in part:

“The rationale behind dismissal of an appeal while a convicted defendant is a fugitive from justice rests upon the inherent discretion of any court to refuse to hear the claim of a litigant who, by escaping, has placed himself beyond the jurisdiction and control of the court, and hence, might not be responsive to the judgment of the court. See Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876); Ruetz v. Lash, 500 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1974); *191 United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1970)

For the foregoing reason, the appeal will be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HESTER, Judge:

Following the submission of the within appeal, this court has been advised by the District Attorney of Berks County that the appellant is now a fugitive. This information has been verified by the Office of the Public Defender, counsel for appellant. Where an appellant is a fugitive while his appeal is pending, the appeal should be quashed. Pa.Rules of Appellate Procedure 1972; Commonwealth v. Borden, 256 Pa.Super. 125, 389 A.2d 633 (1978), wherein this court cited Commonwealth v. Galloway, 460 Pa. 309, 333 A.2d 741 (1975), in part:

“The rationale behind dismissal of an appeal while a convicted defendant is a fugitive from justice rests upon the inherent discretion of any court to refuse to hear the claim of a litigant who, by escaping, has placed himself beyond the jurisdiction and control of the court, and hence, might not be responsive to the judgment of the court. See Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876); Ruetz v. Lash, 500 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1974); *191 United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1970)

For the foregoing reason, the appeal will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 A.2d 892, 282 Pa. Super. 189, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-interest-of-dixon-pasuperct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack